Coleman v. Estes Express Lines, Inc., 627 F.3d 745 (2010)
Bradford Coleman sued his employer, Estes Express Lines and its regional division Estes West, in state court for alleged violations of California wage and hour statutes. Estes Express removed the action to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), and Coleman filed a successful motion to remand it back to…
Futrell v. Payday Cal., Inc., 190 Cal.App.4th 1419 (2010)
Payday provides payroll processing and related services for companies that produce television commercials. In this putative class action, the employees were “freelance crewmembers” whom Reactor Films retained to complete its production activities. John Futrell worked in a private police capacity, providing traffic and crowd control services on various commercials produced by Reactor. On behalf of…
Parth v. Pomona Valley Hosp., 2010 WL 5064380 (9th Cir. 2010)
The Fair Labor Standards Act required Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center (“PVHMC”) to pay its employees 1-1/2 times the employees’ regular rate for any employment in excess of eight hours in any workday and in excess of 80 hours in a 14-day period. However, many of PVHMC’s nurses preferred working 12-hour shifts in…
Pineda v. Bank of America, 50 Cal. 4th 1389 (2010)
Although plaintiff Jorge A. Pineda gave two weeks’ notice of his resignation from Bank of America, the bank did not pay him his final wages on his last day of employment, as required by Cal. Labor Code § 202, but instead paid him four days late. In this putative class action, Pineda sued for…
On December 6, 2010, the United States Supreme Court granted Wal-Mart’s petition for certiorari, agreeing to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision [pdf] to permit certification of a class of 500,000 current and former Wal-Mart employees in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. This litigation, which has been ongoing for nearly a decade, alleges sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against…
On November 18, the California Supreme Court in Pineda v. Bank of America, No. S170758 (Cal. Nov. 18, 2010) (pdf) clarified two issues regarding so-called “waiting time penalties” (i.e., penalties under California Labor Code Section 203 associated with the late payment of final wages upon termination of employment). First, the Court ruled that a three-year statute of limitations applies to such actions, whether or not accompanied by a claim for the underlying late wages. Second, it held that waiting time penalties are not recoverable as restitution under California’s unfair competition law, Business and Professions Code Section 17200 (the “UCL”). While the latter ruling is marginally beneficial to employers by limiting liability under the UCL, the Court’s finding of a three-year statute of limitations for waiting time penalties dramatically expands potential employer liability.
On November 3, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to hear an appeal brought by a Harrah’s Las Vegas casino dealer challenging the District Court’s ruling that her proposed state wage-and-hour class action was preempted by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In so doing, the Ninth Circuit chose not to revisit the District Court’s ruling that the plaintiff could not assert parallel federal and state wage-and-hour class actions. This ruling provides welcome relief to employers threatened by such a multiplicity of claims.
Wang v. Chinese Daily News, 623 F.3d 743 (2010)
Plaintiffs (reporters for the Chinese Daily News) alleged they were non-exempt employees entitled to overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and California state law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the reporters, finding journalists are not subject to the creative professional exemption to the FLSA or California law. The…
Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 189 Cal.App.4th 751 (2010)
Rogelio Hernandez worked as a non-exempt employee at Chipotle Mexican Grill. In this putative class action, Hernandez alleged that Chipotle violated California wage and hour law by failing to ensure that its employees took their meal breaks. The trial court granted Chipotle’s motion to deny class certification and to strike the class allegations on…
While California employers continue to await a definitive ruling from the California Supreme Court, the California Court of Appeal this week issued a ruling determining that employers need only provide employees with meal and rest breaks and need not necessarily ensure that employees take them.
Proskauer and our platform provider LexBlog each use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze traffic. Each of us also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. If you are happy for us to store these cookies on your device please click ‘Accept Cookies.' For more information, please see here and here.
