Wage and Hour

Subscribe to Wage and Hour via RSS

Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004 (2012)

In this long-awaited opinion, the California Supreme Court determined several important issues of law regarding meal and rest breaks. First and foremost, the Supreme Court determined that “an employer’s obligation is to relieve its employee of all duty, with the employee thereafter at liberty to use the meal period for whatever purpose he…

This morning, the California Supreme Court issued its long awaited opinion in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court. Taking up two crucial issues that have spawned dozens of class action suits across the state, the Court answered the questions: (1) must an employer merely provide a meal break to employees or must it ensure that its employees actually take such breaks, and (2) when during the workday must meal and rest breaks be taken and how many must be provided?

With respect to the first issue of what “providing the employee with a meal period” means, the Court concluded that “an employer’s obligation is to relieve its employee of all duty, with the employee thereafter at liberty to use the meal period for whatever purpose he or she desired, but the employer need not ensure that no work is done.”

Duran v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, No. A125557, 2012 WL 366590 (Feb. 6, 2012)

In a decision destined to have significant statewide ramifications, the California Court of Appeal for the First District reversed a trial court’s certification of a wage-hour class and determination of liability, concluding that the trial court had failed to follow “established statistical procedures” in adopting the trial management plan under which class-wide liability was determined by the testimony of only a relative handful of the class members.

Four current and former U.S. Bank Business Banking Officers (BBO) filed suit on behalf of themselves and all current and former BBOs within the relevant period, alleging that they had been misclassified as exempt outside sales people and therefore illegally deprived of overtime pay. After certifying the class, the trial court, over U.S. Bank’s strenuous objections, adopted a trial management plan in which a random sample of 20 (out of 260) class members would testify as representatives of the class, and the court would use this testimony to determine class-wide liability. After bench trials, the court awarded the class members $15 million in unpaid overtime and prejudgment interest, as well as $18 million in attorney’s fees.

Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corp., 667 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 2012)

Fernando Ruiz and similarly situated drivers filed a class action against Affinity alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and California law for failure to pay overtime, failure to pay wages, improper charges for workers’ compensation insurance and unfair business practices. To work for Affinity, the drivers had to enter into an…

Duran v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 203 Cal. App. 4th 212 (2012)

U.S. Bank (“USB”) appealed a $15 million judgment that was entered against it following a bifurcated bench trial. The plaintiffs are 260 current and former business banking officers who claimed they were misclassified by USB as outside sales personnel exempt from overtime pay. The Court of Appeal agreed with USB that the…

Thurman v. Bayshore Transit Mgmt., Inc., 203 Cal. App. 4th 1112 (2012)

Leander Thurman sued Bayshore for alleged violations of the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) and the Unfair Competition Law and, following a bench trial, a judgment was entered imposing civil penalties, including unpaid wages, against Bayshore in the total amount of $358,588 and awarding Thurman restitution in the amount of…

Last week, we reported that the California Labor Commissioner issued a template “Notice to Employee” as required by the Wage Theft Prevention Act of 2011 (the “Act”), which went into effect January 1. The Act requires employers to furnish specified wage information to certain non-exempt employees at the time of their hire.

As we also pointed out, the Commissioner’s “Frequently Asked Questions,” published December 30, 2011, stated that the Notice (or the information contained therein) must be given to all current employees, despite the fact that the statute calls only for employers to provide such data to employees “at the time of hiring.” We placed a call to the DLSE shortly after the FAQs were issued, and the agency responded yesterday by updating its Web site. The FAQs, which can be found here, now reflect that the information required under new Labor Code § 2810.5 need only be provided at the time of hiring and within 7 days of a change in such information, if the change is not listed on the employee’s pay stub for the following pay period.

Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., 662 F.3d 1265 (2011)
Three Oracle instructors (all non-residents of California) filed this class action to recover allegedly unpaid overtime under California law for work they performed while in California. Two of the instructors were residents of Colorado and one was a resident of Arizona; all of them worked in their home states and, from time to time, in California.…

Arnold v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 202 Cal. App. 4th 580 (2011)

Kimbly Arnold filed a complaint against Mutual of Omaha on her behalf and on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated “licensed agents” and “sales representatives” of the company, alleging violations of the California Labor Code, including provisions governing expense reimbursement of employees and timely payment of final wages to…

Aleman v. AirTouch Cellular, 202 Cal. App. 4th 117 (2011)

Daniel Krofta and Mary Katz filed this putative class action against their employer, alleging reporting time pay violations and seeking additional compensation for working split shifts. Krofta sought reporting time pay for days he attended meetings at work even though he was furnished work (and was paid) for at least half of the scheduled…