Labor & Employment Law Blog

AALRR attorney Thomas Lenz was quoted by the Riverside Press-Enterprise on December 23, 2010, in an article on labor negotiations.

In Futrell v. Payday California, Inc., et al., a class action case involving overtime claims against a payroll company that prepared and issued plaintiff’s paychecks, W-2’s and related documents, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s action against the payroll company on grounds that the payroll company was not the plaintiff’s “employer.”

On December 9, 2010, the California Second District Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by a United Parcel Service supervisor for unpaid overtime and missed meal and rest breaks, on the ground that he was employed in an exempt position under California law. The court in Taylor v. UPS held that both the executive and administrative exemptions applied, since the supervisor was primarily engaged in management-related duties which qualified for application of each of the exemptions.

As we previously reported here, in Alcazar, et al. v. The Corporation Of The Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, et al., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Catholic seminarian's claims against his church for allegedly unpaid wages brought under a Washington state minimum wage statute is barred as a matter of law by the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United ...

On May 21, 2008, President George W. Bush signed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (“GINA”) into law, which prohibits the use of genetic information in the employment context, restricts employers and other entities covered by Title II from requesting, requiring, or purchasing genetic information, and strictly limits such entities from disclosing such information. GINA took effect on November 21, 2009.

Labor Code section 203(a) provides that "[i]f an employer willfully fails to pay, without abatement or reduction . . . any wages of an employee who is discharged or who quits, the wages of the employee shall continue as a penalty from the due date thereof at the same rate until paid or until an action therefore is commenced; but the wages shall not continue for more than 30 days." Labor Code section 203(b) provides that "[s]uit may be filed for these penalties at any time before the expiration of the statute of limitations on an action for the wages from which the penalties arise."

In a case of first impression, in Bright v. 99¢ Only Stores, the California Court of Appeal held an employee may seek Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") penalties for alleged violations of an Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") wage order requirement that employers provide employees suitable seats in the workplace when the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats. The court rejected the employer's argument that PAGA penalties are available only for violations of wage payment laws and concluded such penalties are available for violation of nonwage labor standards contained in the IWC's wage orders.

On November 8, 2010, the firm was successful in defeating a motion for class certification and was able to obtain an order striking the class allegations of the complaint pending in the San Bernardino County Superior Court.  Tom Kovacich argued the motion on behalf of the employer, VCI Telcom, Inc. The complaint alleged a menu of wage and hour violations, including underpayment of prevailing wages and sought to certify a class consisting of 89 workers. The court stated on the record that the case presented the closest case for class certification the court has ever had but felt that individual issues predominated over the issues common to the class.  Tom felt a critical factor in the case was the development of evidence that the company's policies and practices were consistent with the law, and plaintiffs did not carry their burden of establishing that the alleged violations were common to the class.  As a result of the Court's denial of class certification, the employer must address only the claims by the two plaintiff former employees who were employed for approximately nine months.

Adding to the body of case law that has been developed pending the Supreme Court's decision in the Brinker Restaurant case, a California appellate last week sided with the employer's arguments they need only “provide” meal periods under state law and not “ensure” that they are taken. The court in Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill accordingly upheld an order denying certification of a proposed meal ...