Wage and Hour

Subscribe to Wage and Hour via RSS

In Stiller v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 3:09-cv-2473-GPC-BGS, Plaintiffs Eric Stiller and Joseph Moro alleged that Costco’s loss-prevention closing procedures effectively “forced” employees to work off-the clock without getting paid because they were required to remain on-site after they had clocked out of their shifts to go through security screenings. In December 2010, the district court certified a California-wide class finding that common questions…

On April 30, 2014, the California Labor Commissioner introduced a new website, WageTheftIsACrime.com in an outreach attempt aimed at what the Commissioner calls the “underserved population of low-wage workers.” Although the Labor Commissioner already operates a thorough and comprehensive website, https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/dlse.html, the new site is purposefully written in plain English in an attempt to reach out to low-wage workers with a minimum of legalese. Notably,…

$150,000 Sexual Harassment Verdict And $680,000 Fee Award Affirmed
Taylor v. Nabors Drilling USA, LP, 222 Cal. App. 4th 1228 (2014)

Max Taylor worked as a floorhand on an oil rig where he alleged he was harassed by his supervisors who called him “queer,” “fagot [sic],” “homo,” and “gay porn star” and was subjected to other humiliating and harassing conduct, including simulated masturbation…

A bill that would have allowed California employers to offer employees a flexible workweek schedule has failed to pass the California Assembly Committee on Labor and Employment in a 5-2 party-line vote. The Committee rejected Assembly Bill 907 on the ground that the proposed law would “lead to employee intimidation and a breakdown of the eight-hour work day.” The bill, which was opposed by Democrats…

Shortly after the California Supreme Court issued its 2012 decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, employers saw an immediate uptick in appellate court decisions supporting the denial of class certification to plaintiffs in wage and hour lawsuits.

Today, the opposite seems to be true: appellate courts are reversing decisions denying class certification and directing trial courts to certify wage and hour class…

California has amended Labor Code § 218.5 to limit the circumstances under which an employer may recover its attorney’s fees and costs as the prevailing party in a lawsuit in which an employee has sued for nonpayment of wages, fringe benefits, or health and welfare or pension fund contributions (SB 462).  Prior to enactment of Senate Bill 462, the prevailing party (either the employer or…

Two recent decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit have reaffirmed the enforceability of employment-related arbitration agreements containing class action waivers. In Sutherland v. Ernst & Young and Raniere v. Citigroup, Inc. the Second Circuit held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requires courts to enforce a valid agreement to arbitrate even where the relevant substantive law – here, the Fair…

Over the past two weeks, the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly underscored the importance of having common questions that are susceptible to common answers in cases where plaintiffs are seeking class certification. Most recently, the Court clarified that this requirement, which has now been considered in both antitrust and employment cases, applies with respect to both merits and damages issues. As discussed below, this clarification presents employers with a potent new tool in the defense of class action wage-and-hour cases.

On March 27, 2013, the Court issued its decision in Comcast Corporation v. Behrend, a putative antitrust class action brought on behalf of 2 million cable subscribers in 649 franchise areas alleging overcharging through an alleged attempted monopoly. In considering whether the class should be certified, the Court held that the need for individualized inquiries with respect to damages issues precluded class certification. (Opinion available here.) Moreover, the Court stressed that lower courts must perform a probing analysis when deciding whether to certify a class in order to ensure the existence of common answers to common questions.

See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court, 2012 WL 5305729 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)

Pamela Silva sued her former employer, See’s Candy, for various wage-and-hour violations. After certifying a class of current and former California employees, the trial court granted Silva’s motion for summary adjudication on four of See’s Candy’s affirmative defenses. In a writ petition to the Court of Appeal, See’s Candy challenged…

Aleman v. AirTouch Cellular, 209 Cal. App. 4th 556 (2012)

Two members of a putative class appealed from a trial court order granting summary judgment against them. The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment on the ground that the employee was not entitled to receive reporting time pay for attending meetings at work because all of the meetings in question were scheduled in advance,…