Litigating California Wage & Hour and Labor Code Class Actions

More documents

Recommendations

Info

multiple entities control different aspects of the employment relationship, as when one entity, which hires and pays workers, places them with other entities that supervise the work.” 525 The Court noted that the plaintiffs in Reynolds had conceded that “the plain language of Wage Order No. 9 defining employer does not expressly impose liability under section 1194 on individual corporate agents.” 526 “In a footnote, we added that the ‘plaintiff . . . ha[d] not persuaded us that one may infer from the history and purposes of section 1194 a clear legislative intent to depart, in the application of that statute, from the common law understanding of who qualifies as an employer.’” 527 The Martinez plaintiffs, however, gave the Court extremely detailed, exhaustive briefing on the history of California’s minimum wage law, the IWC, and the Wage Orders. This apparently convinced the Court that “an examination of section 1194 in its full historical and statutory context shows unmistakably that the Legislature intended to defer to the IWC’s definition of the employment relationship in actions under the statute.” 528 As a result, the Court limited the application of Reynolds: In sum, we hold that the applicable wage order‘s definitions of the employment relationship do apply in actions under section 1194. The opinion in Reynolds, supra, 36 Cal.4th 1075, properly holds that the IWC‘s definition of employer does not impose liability on individual corporate agents acting within the scope of their agency. (Reynolds, at p. 1086.) The opinion should not be read more broadly than that. 529 525 526 527 528 529 Id. at 59. Id. at 63. Id. at 64. Id. Id. at 66. The Court of Appeal in Futrell v. Payday California, Inc. held that, because the language of Wage Order 12 and Wage Order 14 use identical language to define the terms “employ,” “employee” and “employer,” the Supreme Court’s holding in Reynolds that applied Wage Order 14’s definition of “employment” also applies to Wage Order 12. 190 Cal. App 4th 1419, 1429 (2011). Seyfarth Shaw LLP | www.seyfarth.com Litigating California Wage & Hour Class Actions (12th Edition) 118
Breadth. Depth. Results. www.seyfarth.com Atlanta 1075 Peachtree Street, N.E. Suite 2500 Atlanta, GA 30309-3962 404-885-1500 404-892-7056 fax Boston World Trade Center East Two Seaport Lane Suite 300 Boston, MA 02210-2028 617-946-4800 617-946-4801 fax Chicago 131 South Dearborn Street Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60603-5577 312-460-5000 312-460-7000 fax Houston 700 Louisiana Street Suite 3700 Houston, TX 77002-2797 713-225-2300 713-225-2340 fax Los Angeles Century City One Century Plaza 2029 Century Park East Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 310-277-7200 310-201-5219 fax Downtown 333 South Hope Street Suite 3900 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1406 213-270-9600 213-270-9601 fax New York 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018-1405 212-218-5500 212-218-5526 fax Sacramento 400 Capitol Mall Suite 2350 Sacramento, CA 95814-4428 916-448-0159 916-558-4839 fax San Francisco 560 Mission Street Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94105-2930 415-397-2823 415-397-8549 fax Washington, D.C. 975 F Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004-1454 202-463-2400 202-828-5393 fax London CityPoint One Ropemaker Street London EC2Y 9AW +44 (0)20 7763 2500 +44 (0)20 7763 2501 fax ©2012 Seyfarth Shaw LLP. All rights reserved. “Seyfarth Shaw” refers to Seyfarth Shaw LLP (an Illinois limited liability partnership). Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Our London office operates as Seyfarth Shaw (UK) LLP, an affiliate of Seyfarth Shaw LLP. #12-646 4/10
Page 1 and 2:
Litigating California Wage & Hour a
Page 3 and 4:
Table of Contents I. Introduction a
Page 5 and 6:
A. Disclosure of Class Member Names
Page 7 and 8:
associated statutory penalties. 1 T
Page 9 and 10:
who does not meet the threshold com
Page 11 and 12:
exempt work is of a kind which in e
Page 13 and 14:
3) The employee performs his or her
Page 15 and 16:
decisions have concluded that under
Page 17 and 18:
Bell court to look beyond the Wage
Page 19 and 20:
place of business, would that quali
Page 21 and 22:
IWC had the authority to promulgate
Page 23 and 24:
stores” by providing them a porti
Page 25 and 26:
declare such a system illegal witho
Page 27 and 28:
employers should be able to defend
Page 29 and 30:
waive the right to reimbursement, s
Page 31 and 32:
Due to the ambiguity in the meaning
Page 33 and 34:
For each workday the employer fails
Page 35 and 36:
Arguably, no additional $100-per-pa
Page 37 and 38:
permitted” the employee to work t
Page 39 and 40:
federal decisions also held that an
Page 41 and 42:
for all overtime hours worked. The
Page 43 and 44:
much broader, such as the court’s
Page 45 and 46:
In the appeal of Chau, the appellat
Page 47 and 48:
years before the lawsuit, or for an
Page 49 and 50:
imposition of penalties, 194 routin
Page 51 and 52:
In one such class action, Elliot v.
Page 53 and 54:
First, there has been a substantial
Page 55 and 56:
Recent court decisions have begun t
Page 57 and 58:
of her hours was paid at a rate of
Page 59 and 60:
the limitations period for a penalt
Page 61 and 62:
passage, then the employee could st
Page 63 and 64:
all, but rather simply to proceed w
Page 65 and 66:
Shortly thereafter, another Divisio
Page 67 and 68:
and the ability to bring a collecti
Page 69 and 70: XIII. Class Action Fairness Act of
Page 71 and 72: the plaintiff is “master of her c
Page 73 and 74: alleged conduct or any related cond
Page 75 and 76: Initially, the decisions were split
Page 77 and 78: XIV. Class Certification A. General
Page 79 and 80: expectations and the realistic requ
Page 81 and 82: In the immediate wake of Sav-On, th
Page 83 and 84: Similarly, employers may argue that
Page 85 and 86: A 5 to 4 ruling reversed the Ninth
Page 87 and 88: facility to the next, or variations
Page 89 and 90: employer’s defense arsenal, and t
Page 91 and 92: In reaching this conclusion, the Co
Page 93 and 94: party who seeks the same relief, pr
Page 95 and 96: is to be so maintained.” This det
Page 97 and 98: speech. 429 Therefore, the court he
Page 99 and 100: Puerto, or Crab Addison cases would
Page 101 and 102: epresentative. That question was an
Page 103 and 104: CashCall to disclose the identities
Page 105 and 106: nothing but still are bound by the
Page 107 and 108: Initially, there appeared to be a v
Page 109 and 110: the case. As any one of these class
Page 111 and 112: have any great impact on class sett
Page 113 and 114: plaintiff’s attorney and putative
Page 115 and 116: the California Supreme Court issued
Page 117 and 118: While California courts have essent
Page 119: The plaintiffs attempted to justify
show all

Litigating California Wage & Hour and Labor Code Class Actions

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?