Wage & Hour

Following Usher v. White (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 883, this decision holds that, under Lab. Code 558.1, an owner, officer, director, or managing agent of the employer may be held liable for the employer's violation of an IWC wage order or of certain wage and hour sections of the Labor Code if the individual defendant had some oversight of the employer's… Read More

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification in this wage and hour case.  Insofar as plaintiff claimed that the employer's rounding of hours worked was illegal, the trial court properly found that noncommon issues predominated because it had no single rounding policy but left matters up to managers at its different locations.  Plaintiff's theory that… Read More

A volunteer working for a charitable organization without the expectation of payment for his work is not an employee for purposes of state wage and hour laws.  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying certification of an alleged class of all workers for the defendant charity who did not receive pay for their work.  There was a… Read More

Affirming an order denying an employer's motion to compel arbitration of the worker's wage and hour, retaliation and discrimination in employment claims, this decision holds the agreement was at least minimally procedurally unconscionable as it was an adhesion contract.  It also holds two provisions substantively unconscionable, one requiring any claims to be brought within a year of discovery (despite statutes… Read More

Before filing a PAGA suit, a plaintiff must send a pre-suit notice to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and the employer describing the facts and theories to support the alleged violation. Lab. Code 2699.3.  This decision holds that at least when the notice reveals a violation that is likely to have affected more workers than the individual prospective plaintiff… Read More

The plaintiff's alleged failure to give adequate pre-suit notice to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and the employer before filing a PAGA suit is an affirmative defense which the employer waives either by not pleading it in the answer or by, even if so pleaded, not pursuing it as a defense by pretrial motion or at trial. Read More

Lab. Code 226.3 provides for heightened civil penalties in connection with an employer's violation of wage statement requirements of Lab. Code 226.  Disagreeing with Raines v. Coastal Pacific Food Distributors, Inc. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 667, this decision holds that by its plain language, section 226.3 allows for assessment of those heightened civil penalties only when the employer fails to provide… Read More

California's wage statement law (Lab. Code 226) applies to workers based in California who do not work half the time in a different state.  Here, the plaintiff airline crew members were based in California, beginning and ending each sequence of flights there.  They did not spend half their work  time in any other state, so California's wage statement law applied… Read More

In ruling on a motion for approval of a settlement of a PAGA claim, the trial court should apply the "fair, adequate and reasonable" standard applied to approval of class action settlements. Because many of the factors used to evaluate class action settlements bear on a settlement’s fairness—including the strength of the plaintiff’s case, the risk, the stage of the… Read More

Disagreeing with Turrietta v. Lyft, Inc. (2021) 2021 Cal. App. LEXIS 815, this decision holds that the plaintiff in one PAGA action is sufficiently aggrieved by an unfair settlement of a different plaintiff's parallel PAGA suit to have standing to appeal from the judgment following approval of settlement in the other action--so long as the appellant became a party to… Read More