Labor & Employment Law Blog

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 ...

In the case of Trivedi v. Curexo Technology Corp. published on October 20, 2010, a California appellate court refused to enforce an arbitration provision in an employment contract on the ground that it contained multiple unconscionable provisions. By permitting it to pursue injunctive relief in court, and by including a provision in the agreement requiring that the prevailing party be awarded its attorneys’ fees and costs, the employer forfeited its ability to enforce the agreement when the employee sued for discrimination and wrongful termination.

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 ...

The California Supreme Court recently upheld the Governor's unilaterially-implemented mandatory furloughs of represented state employees.  Professional Engineers in California Government, et al. v. Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al., California Supreme Court Case NO. S183411, October 4, 2010. The Court determined that the Budget Act of 2008 "reasonably included the furlough plan that was then in existence," therefore the Legislature approved the Governor's furlough plan as required by law. The Court's ruling was premised on state law that specifically requires the Legislature to approve provisions of memoranda of understanding requiring the expenditure of state funds in the annual Budget Act.  

Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed nine out of the eleven employment-related bills we were tracking that made it to his desk for approval.

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.  

AALRR attorney Thomas Lenz was quoted by the Riverside Press-Enterprise on September 10, 2010, in an article on labor negotiations.