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.
Wage and Hour
Ninth Circuit Refuses to Allow Parallel Federal and State Wage-and-Hour Class Actions to Proceed
By David Gross on
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.
Hotel Workers Ordinance Is Not Unconstitutional
By Tony Oncidi on
Garcia v. Four Points Sheraton LAX, 188 Cal. App. 4th 364 (2010)
In 2006, the City of Los Angeles enacted the Hotel Service Charge Reform Ordinance, which required non-unionized hotels in the Century Boulevard Corridor near LAX to pass along mandatory service charges to the workers who rendered the services for which the charges were collected. (The service workers alleged their income had declined…
Reporters Were Entitled To Judgment In Wage And Hour Class Action
By Tony Oncidi on
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…
Ahead of Brinker, Court of Appeal Holds Employers Need Only Provide Meal and Rest Breaks
By Proskauer Rose 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.
Employer’s Wage Statements Did Not Violate Labor Code
By Tony Oncidi on
Morgan v. United Retail Inc., 186 Cal. App. 4th 1136 (2010)
Amber Morgan filed this class action lawsuit against her former employer under Cal. Lab. Code § 226, alleging United Retail had violated the law because the wage statements issued by the employer listed the total number of regular hours and overtime hours separately and did not provide the sum of the regular and overtime hours as a separate line item. During her deposition, Morgan testified she was injured by United Retail’s failure to include an additional line item showing the sum of hours worked because “[i]t makes it a little difficult to count how many hours I have been working.”
Card Dealers Had No Standing To Challenge Mandatory Tip-Pooling Policy
By Tony Oncidi on
Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens Casino, Inc., 2010 WL 3081272 (Cal. S. Ct. 2010)
Louie Hung Kwei Lu, a card dealer at Hawaiian Gardens Casino, filed this class action challenging the casino’s tip-pooling policy that required dealers to set aside 15 to 20 percent of the tips they received, which the casino distributed to other employees who provided service to casino customers. The Supreme Court…
California Supreme Court Rules There Is No Private Right of Action for Misappropriation of Employee Tips
By Proskauer Rose on
The decision establishes that employees have no right to sue under the California Labor Code to recover tips or gratuities allegedly withheld or misappropriated by their employer.
Class Action Should Have Been Certified As To Claims For Overtime, But Not Meal And Rest Periods
By Tony Oncidi on
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.
California Courts Further Clarify Class Certification Requirements in Wage-and-Hour Suits
By Proskauer Rose on
Recent developments demonstrate that an employer’s uniform policy of classifying employees as exempt from wage-and-hour laws is insufficient to establish the requirements of class certification.