Wage Claim California Labor

10/06/11 - Hotel Labor & Employment Update: California Supreme Court one step ...

The result could stop a wave of class action lawsuits in California - or to provide fuel for many of them.

At issue in the case is whether California employers must ensure that their employees actually take their meal and rest, or simply make them available. Here update Scott.

(Hohnbaum, et al. The real parts of interest) November 8, 2011, in the role of the court issued this week.The Court generally issues decisions within 90 days after the closing arguments and the submission of post-argument briefs, if any. A decision is expected by mid-February, 2012.

At issue in the case is whether California employers must ensure that their employees actually take their meal and rest, or simply make them available. Guidance is also provided regarding the time of the workday in which meal periods and rest periods must be taken and whether or not the flour legally compliant and rest period policies can protect an employer against class actions, even when these policies are applied unevenly.

The decision is extremely important for employers in California because the claims meal period and rest were the basis of hundreds of class action lawsuits in California. The Court's decision could make it more difficult for applicants to present these demands as class actions, or, as the trial, could establish rigid guidelines that may encourage more class actions. In any case, employers in California and plaintiffs' lawyers as a class have eagerly awaited this decision since the Supreme Court took the case in October 2008 and look forward to receiving the advice of the High Court.

Under the law in California, nonexempt employees are entitled to uninterrupted meal periods out of service at least 30 minutes for every five hours worked. Although there are some limited exceptions to this rule (written revocation as a waiver of the meal period in limited circumstances), requires employers to compensate employees for periods of meal service. In addition, California law employers assess a penalty equal to one hour at the regular rate of pay the employee for each day there is a violation meal period.

Does Wal-Mart v. Dukes Impact California Wage and Hour Claims ...

Trackbacks

U.S. Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Ninth Circuit yesterday in Chinese Daily News v. Wang, affirming class certification claims various California Labor Code. The Supreme Court makes no substantive analysis of the views but simply requested that it be referred to the Ninth Circuit "for further consideration in light of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes."

Some may see this as a justification for the view that Dukes is a "game changer" for the certification of wage demands and time. But I tend to disagree.

The unusual aspect of the Chinese decision was Daily News he had founded the certification of plaintiffs' claims under both money wage Rule 23 (b) (2) (applicable to claims in equity) and Rule 23 (b) (3) (applicable to claims for damages). Dukes, however, rejected the use of Rule 23 (b) (2) certification of monetary claims. It is therefore understandable that the case was released and returned.

The vast majority of wage demands, however, are certified only under Rule 23 (b) (3).And Dukes did not change the standard for this part of the rule. Therefore, I predict that the Ninth Circuit will only decide on remand that certification in the case was independent Chinese Daily News appropriate under Rule 23 (b) (3).

For example, in the recent Second Circuit opinion Shahriar c. Smith & Wollensky Restaurant Group, the Court upheld the class certification of wage claims under Rule 23 (b) (3) without finding the need to mention even the Dukes.

In short, at this stage there is really no reason to believe that Duke will have a significant impact on the class certification of wage claims and California hours.

California, A History

California, America's High-Stakes Experiment

California

California

The Labor Relations Process