Arias v. Superior Court, 2009 WL 1838973 (Cal. S. Ct. 2009)
Jose Arias sued his former employer, Angelo Dairy, for a number of alleged violations of the California Labor Code, including five claims that he asserted on behalf of himself as well as other current and former employees under the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”). The trial court granted the employer’s motion to strike all
Class Actions
Court Overturns $86 Million Judgment Awarded In Favor Of Starbucks Baristas
Chau v. Starbucks Corp., 174 Cal. App. 4th 688 (2009)
Jou Chau, a former Starbucks “barista,” brought a class action against the company, challenging Starbucks’ policy of permitting shift supervisors to share in tips that customers place in a collective tip box. Chau alleged the policy violated California’s Unfair Competition Law based on a violation of Labor Code § 351. The trial court certified…
Detention Officers’ State Law Wage Claims Were Not Subject To Exclusive Federal Remedy
Naranjo v. Spectrum Sec. Services, 172 Cal. App. 4th 654 (2009)
Gustavo Naranjo worked as a detention officer for Spectrum, which provides security services in holding facilities and detention centers throughout Los Angeles County under a contract with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). The terms of Spectrum’s contract with ICE rely on wage and fringe benefit determinations by the Secretary of the U.S.…
Mandatory Tip Pool Was Legal But Shift Managers Could Not Share In Tips
Grodensky v. Artichoke Joe’s Casino, 171 Cal. App. 4th 1399 (2009)
Card dealer Harvey Grodensky filed a putative class action challenging a mandatory tip-pooling policy that Artichoke Joe’s Casino had implemented for its dealers. The trial court determined (and the Court of Appeal affirmed) that the casino had not violated the minimum wage law by the tip-pooling arrangement but had violated Labor Code §…
Messengers Were Independent Contractors And Not Employees
Cristler v. Express Messenger Systems, Inc., 171 Cal. App. 4th 72 (2009)
James Cristler and others sued Express Messenger, a parcel delivery service, for violations of California law based upon Express’ allegedly illegal classification of its workers as independent contractors and not employees. Among other things, plaintiffs alleged violations of the California overtime requirements, as well as requirements to properly itemize wages and to…
Limousine Drivers’ Class Action Should Have Been Certified
Ghazaryan v. Diva Limousine, Ltd., 169 Cal. App. 4th 1524 (2009)
Sarkis Ghazaryan filed this class action lawsuit alleging that Diva Limousine had failed to pay wages, overtime compensation, and to provide meal periods and rest breaks in violation of California law. Diva followed a policy of paying its drivers an hourly rate of pay for assigned trips but it failed to pay them…
Patient Could Proceed With Lawsuit Against Hospital Based On Employee’s Alleged Sexual Abuse
C.R. v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., 169 Cal. App. 4th 1094 (2009)
In this class action, C.R. sued Tenet Healthcare for sexual harassment in violation of Civil Code § 51.9 (prohibiting sexual harassment by a health care provider), negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress based upon nursing assistant Ramon Eduardo Gaspar’s alleged sexual touching of her and other patients while they were in a…
Starbucks Applicants With No Prior Marijuana Convictions Could Not Pursue Lawsuit For Labor Code Violations
Starbucks Corp. v. Superior Court, 168 Cal. App. 4th 1436 (2008)
Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and approximately 135,000 other Starbucks applicants who had sought jobs at some 1,500 Starbucks locations throughout California. Plaintiffs contended that the Starbucks application violated California Labor Code §§ 432.7 and 432.8, prohibiting employers from asking about marijuana-related convictions that are more than two…
Employee’s Overtime Claims Were Barred By Settlement Agreement
Larner v. Los Angeles Doctors Hosp. Associates, LP, 168 Cal. App. 4th 1291 (2008)
Josephine Larner, a nurse, sued her former employer, a hospital, for allegedly unpaid overtime. Larner brought the action on behalf of herself and all current and former nonexempt workers employed by defendants who failed to receive required premium overtime wages for the previous four years. The hospital successfully moved for…
Employer Is Obligated To Comply With EEOC Administrative Subpoena
EEOC v. Federal Express Corp., 543 F.3d 531 (9th Cir. 2008)
Tyrone Merritt filed this putative class action on behalf of himself and similarly situated African American and Latino employees, alleging that FedEx’s Basic Skills Test had a statistically significant adverse impact on African American and Latino employees. After issuing a right-to-sue notice to Merritt at his counsel’s request, the EEOC issued an administrative…