Posts Tagged ‘Business’
Advanced Micro Devices, Business, California Supreme Court, Eric Paton, Human resources, Paid time off, Sabbatical, Trial court
In Class Actions, Vacation on August 15, 2011 at 6:50 am
Image by epSos.de via Flickr
California’s Sixth District Court of Appeal held that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether eight-week leave was a sabbatical or regular vacation precluded summary judgment in former employee’s class action against the former employer. Paton v. Advanced Micro Devices, — Cal. Rptr. 3d —-, 2011 WL 3369346, No. H034618 (6th Dist. Aug. 5, 2011).
Background
Plaintiff Eric Paton sued defendant Advanced Micro Divices, Inc. on behalf of himself and a class of others, alleging that Defendant had failed to pay him for an eight-week sabbatical he earned but had not used when he retired. Id. *1 Salaried employees who served for seven years were eligible for an eight-week fully paid sabbatical. Id. Plaintiff argued that the sabbatical was extra vacation and, pursuant to Labor Code section 227.3, the employer could not require an employee to forfeit vacation pay. Id. Plaintiff cited Suastez v. Plastic Dress-Up Co., 31 Cal. 3d 774 (1982), to support his claim that the sabbatical had vested over the seven years he had worked for defendant and he was entitled to the pay when he resigned. Id. Read the rest of this entry »
Apartment, Business, China, Employment, Los Angeles, Shanghai, Welder, Welding
In Jury, Waiting Time Penalties on February 8, 2011 at 8:17 am
Image by The Library of Congress via Flickr
In a wage and hour, failure to accommodate, and disability discrimination case, a welder alleged that his employer terminated him because of his intestinal ailment. Cubias v. Murray’s Iron Works Inc., 7 Trials Digest 14th 14, 2010 WL 5690615, Case No. BC406749 (Cal. Superior, Verdict: July 29, 2010).
Plaintiff alleged that he was employed as an aluminum welder until defendant Murray’s Iron Works terminated his employment. Plaintiff alleged he was harassed and terminated, when he disclosed his medical condition/disability called diverticulosis or diverticular disease., which occurred when pressure in plaintiff’s colon formed bulging pouches that can cause severe stomach cramps, aches, constipation, and/or diarrhea. Id.
Plaintiff alleged disability discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodation, failure to engage in the interactive process, unlawful retaliation, unlawful retaliation in violation of public policy, harassment, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, failure to prevent discrimination and harassment, failure to prevent retaliation, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and failure to pay overtime wages against defendant Murray’s Iron Works. Id. Against defendant Irene Leisner, the Human Resources Manager and co-owner of Murray’s Iron Works, plaintiff alleged harassment, invasion of right to privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress for allegedly entering the men’s restroom at work and yelling at him to get back to work and to hurry up while he was using the restroom. Id. Read the rest of this entry »
Amount in controversy, Business, California, Claims Adjuster, Class action, Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Defendant, Financial Services, Garland E. Burrell, Insurance, Law, Legal burden of proof, Legal Information, Plaintiff, United States
In CAFA Jurisdiction, Class Actions, Overtime on October 14, 2010 at 3:15 pm
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California remanded a wage and hour class action case for failure to meet the $5,000,000 amount in controversy requirement under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). Rhoades v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., Inc., No. 2:10-cv-1788-GEB-KJM, 2010 WL 3958702 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2010). Plaintiffs alleged that they and the members of the putative class were “employed in the State of California by the Defendant[ ] to adjust insurance claims and their positions were known as ‘Claims Adjuster,’ ‘Claims Generalist Associate,’ or similar titles” during the past four years. Id. Plaintiffs and members of the putative class were allegedly “not paid overtime wages for all hours worked” and were not “provided accurate itemized wage statements.” Id.
Apparently attempting to avoid federal court jurisdiction, Plaintiffs also alleged that “the individual members of the classes herein have sustained damages under the seventy-five thousand … jurisdictional threshold and that the aggregate claim is under the five million dollar … threshold, [and argue therefore] removal under the CAFA would be improper.” Id. Plaintiffs state in their prayer for relief: “Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the damages, back-wages, restitution, penalties, interest and attorneys’s [sic] fees do not exceed an aggregate of $4,999,999.99 and that Plaintiffs’ individual claims do not exceed $74,999.99.” Id. Read the rest of this entry »
Business, California Labor Code, California Supreme Court, Defendant, Government, J. B. Hunt, Merrill Lynch, New York Stock Exchange, Plaintiff, Superior court, Truck driver, United States, William Alsup
In Meal and Rest Breaks, Stay on October 11, 2010 at 6:56 am
The Northern District rejected defendant’s motion for stay of a meal and rest break action where the primary focus of complaint was unrelated to the break claims. Murphy v. J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc., No. C 10-01568 WHA, 2010 WL 3911786 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2010) (slip op.). Defendant J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., moved to stay a case alleging three claims for discrimination and one claim for nonpayment of wages for regular meal-and-rest periods. Id. *1. Defendant’s stay motion sought a stay pending the resolution of a case pending before the California Supreme Court, Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 196 P.3d 216 (Oct. 22, 2008), in which the court will decide whether the California Labor Code requires employers to affirmatively ensure that employees take rest and meal breaks. Id.
The court recited the standard for a stay of federal court proceedings as follows:
The proponent of a stay bears the burden of establishing its need. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997). Read the rest of this entry »
Business, Class action, Financial Services, Government, HSBC, Law, Maxine M. Chesney, Supreme Court of the United States, United States
In Certification, Class Notice, Collective Action, FLSA, Opt-in, Outside Salesperson, Overtime, Uncategorized on October 8, 2010 at 5:37 am
The Northern District of California granted defendant’s motion to decertify a conditional FLSA class in Wong v. HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA), No. C-07-2446 MMC, 2010 WL 3833952 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2010). Plaintiff HSBC loan officers, allege that HSBC improperly classified them as exempt under the Federal Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), and, consequently, violated the FLSA by failing to pay them overtime compensation. Id. *1. The Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for an order conditionally certifying, for purposes of the FLSA, a class of persons who, as of May 7, 2004, had been employed by HSBC as loan officers within the United States. Id. Notice of the action was sent to the class, and 120 class members filed consent forms, joining the action as plaintiffs. Id.
Decertification Motion
HSBC argued that individualized factual determinations will be necessary regarding HSBC’s affirmative defense that plaintiffs are/were properly classified as “outside” salespersons and, consequently, are exempt under the FLSA. Id. *2 (citing 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1) (providing “maximum hour requirements” in FLSA do not apply to “any employee employed … in the capacity of outside salesman”)). Read the rest of this entry »
Artificial limb, Bingham McCutchen, Brain, Broadband, Business, Charles C. Lee, DARPA, Judith M. Ashmann-Gerst, Kathryn Doi Todd, Optical fiber, Phrasel L. Shelton, Roger W. Boren, United States
In Attorney's Fees, Bonuses, Class Actions, Collateral Estoppel, Trial on September 28, 2010 at 10:52 pm
The Second District reversed a trial court’s judgment in favor of employees in a class action trial. Pearline Zalewa v. Tempo Research Corporation, B210429, 2010 WL 3735240 (Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist. Sept. 27, 2010). Defendant fiber-optic equipment manufacturer was sued in a class action by its former employees who claimed that the manufacturer breached an obligation to pay them annual bonuses, an obligation that allegedly continued for years after they were laid off from work during a business downturn. Id. The court concluded that the employees were not entitled to any recovery: “All but two of the employees relinquished their right to sue when they were laid off, in return for compensation that exceeded their earned severance pay. In any event, there was no promise made to pay bonuses to the employees after they were laid off.” Id.
The Trial Court’s Judgment
The trial court conducted a bench trial in January 2008, finding that plaintiffs were entitled to recover a direct bonus under theories of breach of contract, promissory estoppel, accounting, and unfair business practices. Id. The court deemed the bonus payments to be “wages” under the Labor Code. Id. And because the bonus payments are wages, plaintiffs were awarded prejudgment interest and attorney fees under the Labor Code. Id. The court enumerated the amount of the award for each employee, less offsets for monies already paid by defendants, plus interest. Id. The total amount of the award, including interest, was approximately $99,000, and plaintiffs’ counsel was awarded attorney fees of $881,715. Id. Read the rest of this entry »
Appellate court, Business, California, Employment, Government, Ralph, United States, Work
In Meal and Rest Breaks, Overtime, Summary Judgment on September 28, 2010 at 5:54 am
The Court of Appeal for the Second District reversed summary judgment on wage and hour claims in Porter v. Ralphs Grocery Company, No. B218220, 2010 WL 3704055 (Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist. Sept. 23, 2010). Plaintiff alleged that defendant required him to work overtime off the clock, and by doing this defendant both denied plaintiff proper wages and made it difficult for plaintiff to calculate the overtime pay due him. Id. *8. Plaintiff also alleged that defendant failed to afford meal periods of at least one-half hour in which he was relieved of all duties, and that he regularly worked without taking the 10 minute rest breaks due him. Id. Plaintiff alleged violation of Labor Code sections 1174, 226.7, and 512. Id. He also alleged violation of Labor Code sections 201 and 203 for failure to pay all sums due plaintiff immediately upon termination of his employment. Id. Additionally, he alleged defendant retaliated against him for his having requested that he not have to work off the books. Id.
The Court of Appeal held that “when an employee continues to work at the end of his shift even when not requested or required to do so, and the employer knows or has reason to know about such continuing work, then the time is considered working time and it is the duty of management to see that the post-shift work is not performed if it does not want the employee to work past his shift.” Id. *9 (citing Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal. 4th 575 (2000)). Read the rest of this entry »
Allegedly Unethical Firms, Business, Cable television, California, Comcast, Law, Legal Information, Susan Illston, TriWire Engineering Solutions
In Class Actions on September 20, 2010 at 11:36 am
- Image by Kat… via Flickr
The Northern District of California granted a motion to strike aiding and abetting allegations from an overtime class action complaint. Toy v. Triwire Engineering Solutions, Inc., No. C 10-1929 SI, 2010 WL 3448535 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2010) (slip op.).
Background
Plaintiff Jason Toy filed a putative class action in state court against defendants TriWire Engineering Solutions, Inc., Comcast Corporation, and Comcast Cable Communications Management LLC, alleging that TriWire and Comcast employed Toy as a cable technician to install, disconnect, and upgrade cable television and computer services for consumers throughout California. Id. *1. Plaintiff contended he was not exempt from overtime requirements, and was not paid overtime in accordance with the law. Id. Read the rest of this entry »
Business, California, Employment, Labour law, Law, Merrill Lynch, Roger T. Benitez, San Diego, United States
In Securities, Wages on September 16, 2010 at 6:40 pm
In Callan v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., No. 09 CV 0566 BEN (BGS), 2010 WL 3452371 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2010) (slip op.), the Southern District held that compensation plans that contained cliff vesting schedules in which awards are forfeited if employment terminates before the awards are vested did not constitute unpaid wages under the Labor Code.
Facts
Former employees of the Defendants Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. participated in three of Merrill Lynch’s employee compensation packages. Id. *1. Plaintiffs alleged they were required to accept part of their wages in the form of “awards” under the plans. Id. Plaintiffs alleged the plans contain forfeiture provisions that constitute unlawful conversion and violate California’s Labor Code and Unfair Competition Law. Id. Read the rest of this entry »
Business, Business and Economy, Government, Howard R. Lloyd, Law, Legal Information, New York City, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, United States
In Class Discovery, Discovery on September 9, 2010 at 7:14 pm
The Northern District granted a putative class representative’s motion to compel timecard and payroll records for all employees in Valenzuela v. MC2 Pool & Spa, et al., No. C09-01698 RS (HRL), 2010 WL 3489596 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2010). Read the rest of this entry »
