Labor & Employment Law Blog

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 ...

In defending numerous wage and hour class action lawsuits, one thing is constant. Such lawsuits nearly always include allegations that the employer failed to provide employees with wage statements (aka check stubs) that comply with Labor Code section 226, which specifies nine items of information that must be stated on each wage statement. Such allegations take one or both of the following forms ...

The Los Angeles Daily Journal reports that corporate counsel who participated in a recent survey are seeing increases in a variety of employment related claims, especially: wage-and-hour disputes; labor union matters; discrimination cases based on alleged age, sex, gender, and disability, and Employee Retirement Income Security Act claims. According to the Daily Journal, "Wage-and-hour disputes ...

In Bateman v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the United States District Court for the Central District of California to deny class certification on the ground that a class action would not be a superior method of litigating the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) on account of (1) potential liability proportionate to the actual harm, if any, to the plaintiff and class members, (2) the size of the potential damages, and (3) the defendant's good faith compliance. The Ninth Circuit held that none of those three considerations was a proper basis for the District Court to deny class certification.  

Today, in Faulkinburty v. Boyd & Associates, Inc., the California Court of Appeal issued a decision that might prove helpful to employers opposing motions for class certification of wage and hour claims.  The court reiterated that it is the plaintiff(s)' burden to show his or her claims are susceptible to common proof (i.e. proof of alleged liability common to all of the purported class members) and that a defendant employer "'may defeat class certification by showing that an affirmative defense would raise issues specific to each potential class member and that the issues presented by that defense predominate over common issues.'"

As we previously reported here, on May 20, 2010, by a unanimous decision in Martinez v. Corky N. Combs, the California Supreme Court clarified the standard courts must use to determine who is liable as an "employer" for violations of wage and hour laws embodied in Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Orders, including claims for unpaid or underpaid wages.  In that case, the plaintiffs sought to hold customers of the employer liable for their claims for allegedly unpaid wages. The trial court, the Court of Appeal, and the California Supreme Court all rejected the plaintiffs' arguments.

The issue of whether an employer's obligation to "provide" to non-exempt employees unpaid, duty free meal periods of at least 30 minutes means the employer must ensure that non-exempt employees actually take such meal periods or means the employer must merely make the meal periods available has been pending before the California Supreme Court since August 2008 when the court granted review of the Court of ...

Claims asserting violations of California's wage and hour laws are frequently if not predominantly brought as class actions. One of the most hotly litigated issues in such cases is the issue of whether the case should or should not be certified as a class, which nearly always turns on whether common issues of law and fact predominate over individual issues. Two recent Court of Appeal decisions emphasizing that plaintiffs seeking class certification carry the burden of showing that liability can be established based on common proof (i.e., proof applicable to all of the class members) may be helpful to employers opposing class certification.

Today, by a unanimous decision in Martinez v. Corky N. Combs, the California Supreme Court clarified the standard courts must use to determine who is liable as an "employer" for violations of wage and hour laws embodied in Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Orders, including claims for unpaid or underpaid wages.We think the decision is generally favorable for employers because the Supreme Court expressly rejected on the facts before it a number of theories of liability plaintiffs sometimes assert when attempting to hold liable for wage and hour claims persons or entities other than the obvious "employer."