calwages.com

Posts Tagged ‘Government’

DFEH Charge Does Not Toll Statute of Limitations Under the Labor Code

In Statutes of Limitation on October 19, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Caltrans Ama 3
Image by Omar Omar via Flickr

The Court of Appeal for the Second District held that a “DFEH complaint will [not] toll the statute on a claim for unpaid wages under the Labor Code.”  Parvizian v. California Department of Transportation, No. B215608, 2010 WL 4012070 (Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist. Oct. 14, 2010).

Background

Plaintiff-appellant Syrus Parvizian brought a suit against his former employer, respondent State of California Department of Transportation (“DOT”).  Id. *1.  The operative first amended complaint brought six causes of action, titled Damages for Violation of Statutory Duty to Pay Wages and Compensation, Unpaid Wages, Accounting, Conversion, Money Had and Received, and Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation in Violation of Government Code section 12940.  Id. DOT’s demurrer was sustained with leave to amend as to the causes of action for Damages of Violation of the Statutory Duty to Pay Wages and Compensation, Accounting, Conversion, and Money Had and Received.  Id. The court ruled that the claims were not properly pled, noting that “the state can only be sued if it authorizes a lawsuit, and you don’t plead the proper statutory authority to do so.”  Id. The court overruled the demurrer to the cause of action for unpaid wages, which was brought under Labor Code sections 201 and 202. Id. The court found that the cause of action for violation of Government Code section 12940 had been dismissed with prejudice in the earlier case, and sustained the demurrer as to that cause of action without leave to amend. Id. Plaintiff elected not to amend his complaint, and DOT filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the cause of action under the Labor Code, on the defense of statute of limitations.  Id. The court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint. Id.

Statute of Limitations Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

Northern District Rejects Stay of Meal and Rest Break Action Pending California Supreme Court’s Decision in Brinker v. Superior Court

In Meal and Rest Breaks, Stay on October 11, 2010 at 6:56 am
A Toyota Hiace from the 1970s with 2-piece old...
Image via Wikipedia

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 »

Northern District Finds Factual Determination of Outside Salesperson Exemption Unsuited for Class Treatment

In Certification, Class Notice, Collective Action, FLSA, Opt-in, Outside Salesperson, Overtime, Uncategorized on October 8, 2010 at 5:37 am
HSBC Bank in Armenia
Image via Wikipedia

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 »

Second District Affirms Denial of Class Certification in Meal and Rest Break Class Action, Holding That Employers Need Not Ensure Employees Take Breaks

In Certification, Class Actions, Meal and Rest Breaks on October 5, 2010 at 5:25 am
Chipotle Mexican Grill at 2608 Erwin Road next...
Image via Wikipedia

In a putative meal and rest break class action, the Second District denied class certification, holding that “employers must provide employees with breaks, but need not ensure employees take breaks.”  Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. B216004, 2010 WL 3789012 (Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist. Sept. 30, 2010).  Plaintiff and appellant Rogelio Hernandez (Hernandez) Hernandez filed a class action lawsuit against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (Chipotle) alleging that Chipotle violated labor laws by denying employees meal and rest breaks. Id. *1. The trial court denied class certification, and plaintiff appealed.  Id. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that it would not be “practical” to require “enforcement of meal breaks” since it “would place an undue burden on employers whose employees are numerous or who … do not appear to remain in contact with the employer during the day.”  Id. *7. “It would also create perverse incentives, encouraging employees to violate company meal break policy in order to receive extra compensation under California wage and hour laws.” Id.

Background

Chipotle is a fast food restaurant chain, and all employees are nonexempt, except for the salaried position of “restaurateur.” Id. *1. Chipotle’s written policies require managers to provide employees with meal and rest breaks, and employees are not permitted to self-initiate breaks and are prohibited from skipping breaks. Id. Chipotle directs employees to record their breaks. Read the rest of this entry »

Second District Reverses Summary Judgment on All Wage and Hour Claims

In Meal and Rest Breaks, Overtime, Summary Judgment on September 28, 2010 at 5:54 am
GLENDALE, CA - JANUARY 30:  A truck leaves the...
Image by Getty Images via @daylife

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 »

Surprising Side Effect of the Minimum Wage: Finishing High School

In Minimum Wage, Wages on September 26, 2010 at 12:48 am
This is a history of minimum wage increases un...
Image via Wikipedia

The National Bureau of Economic Research report suggests a surprising effect of the minimum wage: finishing high school.  As reported by Kevin Lewis of the Boston Globe:

By curtailing low-wage/low-skill jobs, the minimum wage motivates young people to stay in school and become skilled. This effect then generates what the author calls an “educational cascade” by setting an example for the upcoming class of students. He estimates that the average male born in 1951 gained 0.2 years — and the average male born in 1986 gained 0.7 years — of high school due to the cumulative effect of the minimum wage.

Sutch, R., “The Unexpected Long-Run Impact of the Minimum Wage: An Educational Cascade,” National Bureau of Economic Research (September 2010).

By CHARLES JUNG

Enhanced by Zemanta

Unclean Hands Bars Suit Between Construction Contractors Where Subcontractor Failed to Pay Labor Code Prevailing Wages

In Affirmative Defenses, Unclean Hands on September 12, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Two empty display cabinets
Image via Wikipedia

Plaintiff construction subcontractor appealed from a trial court ruling that its suit against the construction contractor was barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.  B & K Custom Cabinets, Inc. v. B.K. Ball, Inc., No. C060766, 2010 WL 3508321 (Cal. Ct. App. 3d Dist. Sept. 9, 2010).  The subcontractor B & K sued contractor Ball seeking to enforce a stop notice and asserting causes of action for breach of contract and violation of the prompt payment laws, all designed to recover $155,534 allegedly due under the subcontract. Id. *6.  Ball claimed it owed no more than $87,987, but because it had knowledge of B & K’s prevailing wage violation, Ball could not pay even that amount without exposing itself to liability under Labor Code section 1775 unless B & K provided “an affidavit signed under penalty of perjury” attesting that B & K employees had been paid the prevailing wages.” Id. (citing Lab. Code § 1775(b)). Read the rest of this entry »

Northern District Compels Pre-Certification Production of Class-wide Timecards and Payroll Records

In Class Discovery, Discovery on September 9, 2010 at 7:14 pm
HAKONE, JAPAN - APRIL 19:  Visitors enjoy the ...
Image by Getty Images via @daylife

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 »

Raided California Company Sued in Wage & Hour Class Action for Mistreating Undocumented Workers

In Breaking News on September 1, 2010 at 6:22 am

Business Week reports that civil rights lawyers filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday against Terra Universal Inc., a government contractor that was the target of an immigration raid this summer, accusing the company of bilking illegal workers out of pay and violating their rights.  The civil suit alleges that Terra Universal and its owner denied illegal immigrant workers overtime and sick pay and discriminated against them because of their visa status. Read the rest of this entry »

Southern District Rejects Argument That Wage Order 7-2001 Invalid

In IWC Orders on August 27, 2010 at 10:59 am
A CVS pharmacy in Southside Place, Texas, form...
Image via Wikipedia

In Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Civil No. 09cv2051-L(CAB), 2010 WL 3339464 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2010) (slip op.) Defendant argued that provisions of Wage Order 7-2001 were invalid because the IWC, before adopting any new rules, regulations or policies, was required by Labor Code section 1173 to consult with the California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board to determine areas of potential overlap, which it is alleged to have failed to do because it delegated too much to the staff. Id. *2.  The court rejected this argument, agreeing with the California Court of Appeal in California Manufacturers Association v. Industrial Welfare Commission, 109 Cal. App. 3d 95, 122-23 (1980).

Defendant also argued that the action should be dismissed because the pertinent provision of Wage Order 7-2001 is not incorporated into Labor Code Section 1198. Section 1198 provides: Read the rest of this entry »