Class Actions

Subscribe to Class Actions via RSS

On October 22, 2010, the California Court of Appeal in Villacres v. Abm Industries Inc., No. B219584, __ Cal. App. 4th __ (2010) rejected an attempt by a settling class member to use the California Private Attorney Generals Act (PAGA) to bring successive claims for civil penalties against his former employer, from whom he had previously accepted the proceeds from a class action settlement involving similar claims.  In so doing, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s granting of summary judgment for the employer on the ground that the plaintiff’s claims were barred under the doctrine of res judicata.  This outcome is a clear victory for employers who purchase costly peace through court-approved class action settlements, and a welcome clarification that PAGA cannot be used to peck an employer to death once such settlements are final.

Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Assocs., Inc., 185 Cal. App. 4th 1363 (2010)

Plaintiffs sought to represent and certify a class of 4,000 current and former employees of Boyd & Associates, which provides security guard services throughout Southern California. Plaintiffs alleged that Boyd denied the putative class members off-duty meal periods and rest breaks and that it had failed to include certain reimbursements and an annual bonus payment in calculating the employees’ hourly rate of overtime pay.

Rodriguez v. Maricopa County Cmty. Coll., 605 F.3d 703 (9th Cir. 2010)

Professor Walter Kehowski sent three racially-charged emails over a distribution list maintained by the college district where he teaches math. Every district employee with an email address received Kehowski’s messages, including plaintiffs in this case – a certified class of the district’s Hispanic employees. Plaintiffs sued the district, its governing board and two district administrators, claiming their failure to properly respond to the emails created a hostile environment in violation of Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause.

Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, 603 F.3d 571 (2010) (en banc)

The district court certified a class encompassing all women employed by Wal-Mart at any time after December 26, 1998 who claimed gender discrimination under Title VII and who sought injunctive and declaratory relief, back pay and, in a separate opt-out class, punitive damages. Among other things, plaintiffs claim they received lower pay and fewer…

Cumbie v. Woody Woo, Inc., 596 F.3d 577 (2010)

Misty Cumbie worked as a waitress at the Vita Café (owned and operated by Woody Woo, Inc.). Woo required its servers to contribute their tips to a “tip pool” that was redistributed to all restaurant employees, including the kitchen staff (dishwashers and cooks). Cumbie filed this putative collective and class action against Woo, alleging that…

Narouz v. Charter Communications, LLC, 591 F.3d 1261 (9th Cir. 2010)

Hani Narouz filed a complaint against Charter Communications in which he alleged causes of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, as well as statutory violations of the California Labor Code for failure to pay wages, provide meal periods, maintain accurate itemized wage statements, and unfair competition under Business & Professions…

Haro v. City of Rosemead, 174 Cal. App. 4th 1067 (2009)

Randy Haro and Robert Ballin filed an action against the city of Rosemead alleging a violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion to have the class certified pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 382 (the California class action statute) on the ground that an…

Martorana v. Marlin & Saltzman, 2009 WL 1875681 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)

Ron Martorana was a class member in a wage and hour class action that had been filed against his former employer, Allstate Insurance Company. The Los Angeles Superior Court approved a settlement of the class action, but Martorana did not recover any portion of the settlement because he had failed to timely…