Labor & Employment Law Blog

In another of several recent decisions in class action cases issued by California appellate courts, the Second District Court of Appeal last week upheld the denial of class certification in a case brought on behalf of accountants for unpaid overtime. (Soderstedt v. CBIZ, July 7, 2011).  The court found that because the responsibilities of each of the alleged class members differed with their levels of experience, the particular engagements they worked on, the clients and clients’ industries, and the other accountants they worked with, common questions of law and fact did not predominate and the proposed class could not be certified.

The National Law Journal announced today it named Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo to The National Law Journal's 2011 Midsize Hot List.  The National Law Journal reports it "settled on 20 firms that demonstrated excellence in the courtroom or boardroom; that spotted a niche that eluded their competitors or that excelled on many fronts . . . firms that clearly stand apart from your everyday law firm."

This week proposed changes in the rules affecting labor relations have come from two federal agencies.

As we previously reported here, on April 26, 2010, in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a divided Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided 6-5 en banc to affirm the decision of the trial court to grant class certification in a discrimination lawsuit alleging Wal-Mart Stores discriminates against its women employees. The nationwide class is reputed by the Los Angeles Daily Journal to number upward of 1.6 million women employees, which would make the class the largest class in United States history.

MSNBC reports today that a Pennsylvania appellate court affirmed a $187.6 Million verdict against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., in a class action lawsuit for allegedly denying hourly employees meal and rest breaks. Although the appellate court affirmed the damages verdict, it did order the trial court to recalculate the $45.6 Million award of attorneys fees to the employees' attorneys, indicating the trial court erred by "double-counting" some factors when calculating the attorney's fees award. Click here to read the story. 

As we previously reported here, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued on May 18, 2011, a press release announcing the NLRB issued a complaint against a non-profit employer for allegedly violating the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by terminating five employees who posted on a co-worker's Facebook page comments critical of their working conditions. According to the NLRB's press release," The complaint alleges that the Facebook discussion was protected concerted activity within the meaning of Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, because it involved a conversation among coworkers about their terms and conditions of employment, including their job performance and staffing levels."

As many of our readers know, the California Court of Appeals decided in Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court that an employer's obligation to "provide" to non-exempt employees meal periods required by the Labor Code and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders is to make those meal periods available and not to ensure that employees take the meal periods provided to them.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)  issued today a press release announcing the NLRB issued a complaint against a non-profit employer for allegedly violating the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by terminating five employees who posted on a co-worker's Facebook page comments critical of their working conditions. According to the NLRB's press release,"The complaint alleges that the Facebook discussion was protected concerted activity within the meaning of Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, because it involved a conversation among coworkers about their terms and conditions of employment, including their job performance and staffing levels." Click here to download and read the press release. 

As we previously reported here, on February 7, 2011, in Arechiga v. Dolores Press, Inc., the California Court of Appeal upheld California’s “explicit mutual wage agreement” doctrine. “Under that doctrine,” said the court, “an employer and [non-exempt] employee may lawfully agree to a guaranteed fixed salary so long as the employer pays the employee for all overtime at least one and one-half times the employee’s basic rate” so long as the employer and the employee enter into an agreement specifying: (1) the days the employee will work each workweek, (2) the number of hours the employee will work each workday, (3) the specific amount of the salary the employee is guaranteed to be paid, (4) the employee is informed and agrees to the basic hourly rate of pay upon which the salary will be based, (5) the employee is informed and agrees the agreed-upon salary covers the employees straight-time hours and overtime hours, and (6) the agreement is reached before the work is performed. 

The United States Department of Labor ("DOL") recently announced the release of a free smart phone application available in English and Spanish that will enable employees to "independently track the hours they work and determine the wages they are owed." According to the DOL, "users conveniently can track regular work hours, break time and any overtime hours for one or more employers." The DOL goes on to ...