The California Court of Appeal in Aleman v. AirTouch Cellular has addressed for the first time; (1) whether reporting time pay applies to training meetings which are scheduled in advance; (2) whether Split-shift premium pay should be paid if an employee earns more than the minimum wage for all hours worked plus one additional hour of pay in a workday; and, (3) whether employers may
Brinker Dooms Class Certification of Meal and Rest Period Claims
Plaintiff Rogelio Hernandez brought a putative class action lawsuit for Chipotle’s alleged failure to provide meal and rest breaks to its non-managerial employees pursuant to California Labor Code Section 226.7. The California Court of Appeal held that the Supreme Court’s decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal. 4th 1004, precluded class certification because the Labor Code only requires that employers provide, not ensure, that breaks are taken. In the context of this case, the Court held that Chipotle did not have a universal practice with regard to breaks. “Some employees declared they always missed breaks; some declared they received meal breaks but not rest breaks; one declared his meal and rest breaks were combined; some did not declare they were denied meal breaks; and others declared their breaks were delayed.” Even the Plaintiff admitted that Chipotle’s break practices varied. Concluding that class certification was inappropriate, the Court stated, “in order to prove Chipotle violated break laws, Hernandez would have to present an analysis restaurant-by-restaurant, and perhaps supervisor-by-supervisor.
California Court Approves Class Action Waivers In Employment Arbitration Agreements
The plaintiff in Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, brought a putative class action and a representative action under California’s Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) for various wage and hour violations. During his employment, Iskanian agreed that he would not assert class action or representative action claims against his employer and, instead, agreed to submit any legal claims he had to binding arbitration.
The California Court of Appeal for the Second District held that the employee was bound by his agreement. Relying on the United States Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, the Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts any state law prohibiting class action waivers in arbitration agreements. The Court also found that Concepcion overruled Gentry v. Superior Court – a California Supreme Court decision which held that class action waivers in arbitration agreements are unenforceable if class arbitration would be more efficient than individual litigation. Rejecting this notion, the Court stated, “a rule like Gentry – requiring Courts to determine whether to impose class arbitration on parties who contractually rejected it – cannot be considered consistent with the objective of enforcing arbitration agreements according to their terms.”