Jury panels in the Los Angeles Superior Court (which is often referred to as “The Bank” by the plaintiffs’ bar) have recently delivered multimillion-dollar verdicts to former-employee plaintiffs. Many employers doing business in California already have insulated themselves from such disasters by adopting comprehensive arbitration regimes, which would require that such cases be heard by a retired judge or employment lawyer rather than a jury
Verdugo v. Alliantgroup, L.P., 237 Cal. App. 4th 141 (2015)
Rachel Verdugo, an associate director in the Irvine office of Alliantgroup, filed this putative class action against her employer for various violations of the California Labor Code governing overtime compensation, meal and rest breaks, vacation pay, the Private Attorneys General Act and accurate wage statements. When she was hired, Verdugo had signed an “Employment
Duran v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 59 Cal. 4th 1 (2014)
Plaintiffs in this case are loan officers for U.S. Bank (“USB”) who claim they were misclassified as exempt employees under the outside salesperson exemption. After certifying a class of 260 plaintiffs, the trial court devised a plan to determine the extent of USB’s liability to all class members by extrapolating from a random
On Monday, June 30, 2014, the California Supreme Court handed down its decision in Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, a lawsuit brought on behalf of a group of newspaper delivery carriers who alleged that they had been misclassified as independent contractors instead of employees. The trial court had initially denied certification, finding that common issues did not predominate and that a classwide trial would
Stockwell v. City & County of San Francisco, 2014 WL 1623736 (9th Cir. 2014)
In this putative class action, several San Francisco police officers over the age of 40 alleged that a new policy of the San Francisco Police Department abandoning an examination for consideration for promotion to Assistant Inspector worked a disparate impact upon them based on their age. The district court denied
$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
After the renowned remand from the California Supreme Court, the Hohnbaum plaintiffs in Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004 (2012) sought to certify meal period claims alleging that all California employees were denied meal periods because Brinker’s corporate meal period policies were unlawful.
Plaintiffs argued that Brinker’s corporate policies were unlawful because (1) prior to 2002, it had no meal
In 2005, Congress passed the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), which creates federal jurisdiction over class actions involving more than 100 class members and $5 million in controversy. Plaintiffs have long attempted to avoid CAFA’s invocation of federal jurisdiction by stipulating to no more than $5 million in classwide damages. In Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 133 S. Ct. 1345 (2013), the Supreme
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