Employment Law
Blog
Preemption and Collective Bargaining Agreements
To survive a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a complaint must state sufficient facts, accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Chavez v. United States, 683 F. 3d 1102, 1108-1109 (9th Cir. 2012). Thus, a defendant is not entitled to judgment on the pleadings if the complaint raises issues of fact which, if proved, would support recovery. General Conference Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists v. Seventh-Day Adventist Congregational Church, 887 F. 2d 228, 230 (9th Cir. 1989).
Whistleblowing and Hazardous Working Conditions
To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, a plaintiff must show that (1) they engaged in a protected activity, (2) that they were thereafter subjected to adverse employment action by their employer, and (3) there was a causal link between the two. Iwekaogwu v. City of Los Angeles, 75 Cal.App.4th 803, 814 (1999), quoting Flait v. North American Watch Corp., 3 Cal.App.4th 467, 476 (1992).In order to be protected against discharge, a complainant need only make a good faith complaint about working conditions that they believes to be unsafe. Cabesuela v. Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., 68 Cal.App.4th 101, 1009 (1998) [emphasis added]. An employer is prohibited from retaliating against a complainant who made “a bona fide oral or written complaint to [their] employer of unsafe working conditions, or work practices, in [their] employment or place of employment.” Labor Code § 6310(b) [emphasis added].
Limiting Pre-Certification Communication in a Class Action Lawsuit
“In the context of a class action, it is the court’s authority and duty to exercise control over the class action to protect the rights of all parties, and to prevent abuses which might undermine the proper administration of justice.” (Howard Gunty Profit Sharing Plan v. Superior Court (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 572, 581 (citing Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard (1981) 452 U.S. 89, 100–103).)“Communications that misrepresent the status or effect of the pending action, or which may cause confusion, adversely affect the administration of justice.” (Howard Gunty, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th 572at 582.) “Where a trial court identifies a potential for abuse, the court ‘has both the duty and the broad authority to exercise control over a class action and to enter appropriate orders governing the conduct of counsel and parties.’” (Hernandez v. Vitamin Shoppe Industries, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1454 (quoting Howard Gunty, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at 579).
Explaining Wage Order Exemptions in California
The IWC wage orders specify three exemptions for (1) executive, (2) administrative, and (3) professional employees. The exemptions are strictly defined and narrowly construed, and the employer bears the burden of proving the applicability of an exemption as an affirmative defense. Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 785, 794.
Overtime and Misclassification in California
The test for whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee is whether the employer has the right to control the manner and means of the worker’s performance. S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341, 349–351. A number of different factors contribute to the extent of control that an employer exercises over its workers: (1) the right to discharge at will, without cause; (2) whether the principal or the worker supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and the place of work for the person doing the work; (3) the length of time for which the services are to be performed; (4) the method of payment, whether by the time or by the job; (5) whether the one performing services is engaged in a distinct occupation or business; and (6) whether or not the work is part of the regular business of the principal. Id.
Certification and Penalties for a Wage & Hour Class Action in California
Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512 in conjunction with Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order No. 5 (California Code of Regulations, tit. 8, sec. 11050) require Defendants to authorize and permit meal and rest breaks to their employees. California law prohibits employers from employing an employee for more than five hours without a meal period of at least 30 minutes. “[A]n employer’s obligation is to provide an off duty meal period: an uninterrupted 30–minute period during which the employee is relieved of all duty.” Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Super. Ct. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004, 1035. In order for an employee to be relieved of all duty, the employee must be free to leave the workplace premises. Id. at 1036. An employer cannot “impede or discourage [employees] from [taking breaks].” Id. at 1040.Section 226.7 and IWC Wage Order No. 5 also require employers to authorize and permit employees to take 10-minute rest breaks for each four hours of work, or major fraction thereof, and to pay employees their full wages during their rest breaks. A “major fraction of four hours” means greater than two hours. Brinker, supra, 53 Cal.4th at 1029. Unless the employee is relieved of all duty during the 30-minute meal break and 10-minute rest break, the employee is considered “on duty” and the meal or rest break is counted as time worked under the applicable wage orders.
Missed-Break Premium Wages
Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512 in conjunction with Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order No. 5 (California Code of Regulations, tit. 8, sec. 11050) require Defendants to authorize and permit meal and rest breaks to their employees. California law prohibits employers from employing an employee for more than five hours without a meal period of at least 30 minutes. “[A]n employer’s obligation is to provide an off duty meal period: an uninterrupted 30–minute period during which the employee is relieved of all duty.” Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Super. Ct. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004, 1035. In order for an employee to be relieved of all duty, the employee must be free to leave the workplace premises. Id. at 1036. An employer cannot “impede or discourage [employees] from [taking breaks].” Id. at 1040.Section 226.7 and IWC Wage Order No. 5 also require employers to authorize and permit employees to take 10-minute rest breaks for each four hours of work, or major fraction thereof, and to pay employees their full wages during their rest breaks. A “major fraction of four hours” means greater than two hours. Brinker, supra, 53 Cal.4th at 1029. Unless the employee is relieved of all duty during the 30-minute meal break and 10-minute rest break, the employee is considered “on duty” and the meal or rest break is counted as time worked under the applicable wage orders.
Benefits and Requirements for Class Certification
Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 and the applicable wage orders require Defendants to authorize and permit meal and rest periods to their employees. California law prohibits employers from employing an employee for more than five hours without a meal period of at least 30 minutes, and from employing an employee more than ten hours per day without providing the employee with a second meal period of not less than 30 minutes. “[A]n employer’s obligation is to provide an off duty meal period: an uninterrupted 30–minute period during which the employee is relieved of all duty.” Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Super. Ct., 53 Cal. 4th 1004, 1035 (2012). “An employer must relieve the employee of all duty for the designated period.” Id. at 1034. An employer cannot “impede or discourage [employees] from [taking breaks].” Id. at 1040. Section 226.7 and applicable wage orders also require employers to authorize and permit employees to take 10-minute rest periods for each four hours or major fraction thereof of work, and to pay employees their full wages during their rest periods. “[A]s a general matter,” one rest break should fall on either side of the meal break.” Id. at 1032. Unless the employee is relieved of all duty during the 30-minute meal period and 10-minute rest period, the employee is considered “on duty” and the meal or rest period is counted as time worked under the applicable wage orders. When an employer fails to provide a rest or meal period in accordance with the applicable wage orders, the employer must pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of pay for each workday that a required rest period is not provided, and one additional hour of pay for each work day that a compliant meal period is not provided. Labor Code § 226.7.
Demurrers to Class Allegations
“A demurrer to class allegations may be sustained without leave to amend only if it is clear there is no reasonable possibility that the plaintiffs could establish a community of interest among the potential class members and that individual issues predominate over common questions of law and fact.” Gutierrez, supra, 118 Cal.App.4th at 975 (citing Blakemore v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 36, 53) (internal quotations omitted). “If there is a reasonable possibility the plaintiffs can plead a prima facie community of interest among class members, the preferred course is to defer decision on the propriety of the class action until an evidentiary hearing has been held on the appropriateness of class litigation.” Id. “Judicial policy in California has long discouraged trial courts from determining class sufficiency at the pleading stage and directed that this issue be determined by a motion for class certification. In order to effect this judicial policy, the California Supreme Court has mandated that a candidate complaint for class action consideration, if at all possible, be allowed to survive the pleading stages of litigation.” Id. (citing Tarkington, supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at 1510).
Material Representations in Employment Law
False representations made recklessly and without regard for their truth in order to induce action by another are the equivalent of misrepresentations knowingly and intentionally uttered. Yellow Creek Logging Cor v. Dare, 216 Cal.App.2d 50, 55 (1963), Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc., 15 Cal.4th 951, 977 (1997).A misrepresentation may be a false representation of material fact or concealment or nondisclosure of material fact. Lazar v. Superior Court, 12 Cal.4th (1996) at 638.