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
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
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
Pamela Silva brought a wage-and-hour class action against her former employer, See’s Candy Shops, Inc., alleging, in part, that See’s failed to pay her wages for all hours worked because the See’s timekeeping system rounded employee time entries to the nearest tenth of an hour/nearest six minutes. In response to the complaint, See’s alleged that its use of rounding was consistent with state and federal
Harris v. Superior Court, 207 Cal. App. 4th 1225 (2012)
Plaintiffs in this case are insurance claims adjusters who claim they were misclassified as exempt from overtime under the administrative exemption. The Court of Appeal held that because the adjusters’ primary work duties are the day-to-day tasks of adjusting individual claims and are not directly related to management policies or general business operations, the
Bell v. H.F. Cox, Inc., 2012 WL 3846827 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)
Oscar Bell and other truck drivers filed a putative class action against Cox, alleging wage and hour violations. Among other things, the drivers alleged that Cox had failed to pay promised vacation benefits to current employees (it paid them a flat rate of $500 of vacation pay per week, which was later