The dormant Commerce Clause does not prohibit California from applying its labor laws to airline employees who reside or are employed predominantly in California.  The airline’s block time method of computing pay was similar to the pay scheme approved in Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 762, and so did not offend California Labor Code guarantees of minimum wage and payment for all hours worked. As Sullivan v. Oracle Corp. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1191 holds, California’s overtime compensation laws apply to out-of-state workers who perform work in California for a California employee, like this airline.  The Federal Aviation Act and  Airline Deregulation Act do not preempt application of California’s meal and rest break requirements to employees performing work in California for California employers.  The FAA preempts only state laws that affect aviation safety, and the ADA applies to state regulation of routes and fares.  Meal and rest break regulations do neither.  California’s wage statement law, Lab. Code 226 applies to employees who perform a majority of their work in California, or if they do not spend a majority of time in any state, then if they are based in California.  See Ward v. United Airlines, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 732. Virgin classified the plaintiff class members as being California-based, so Lab. Code 226 applies to them.  California’s waiting time penalty statute Lab. Code 201, 202 applies to workers on the same basis as California’s wage statement law.