Class Actions

Ever since the seminal case of Brinker v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004, class action attorneys in California have grappled over the following issue:  Should a trial court reviewing a motion for class certification focus on the theory of liability presented by the plaintiffs, or on the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims?  Put differently, can a trial court deny class certification on the grounds that it rejects a plaintiff’s theory of liability?  The recent case of Hall v. Rite Aid Corporation (May 2, 2014) 2014 DJDAR 6145 provides some guidance regarding these questions.  In our opinion, Hall gets it right on both counts.

But first, a little background.  The politics of this issue are not subtle.  The anti-class action folks would like for class certification motions to focus on the merits.  They believe that judges should be able to deny certification on the grounds that the plaintiffs are wrong about either the facts or the law or both.  The reason for this political play is that once class certification is granted, notice must go out to all class members apprising them of their rights and allowing them to either remain involved or opt out of the case.  Anti-class action folks do not like these notices, because they tend to result in more people learning about the illegal conduct that is going on, which, in turn, leads to more people asserting their rights.  At that point, the proverbial toothpaste is out of the tube and unlikely to go back in. Continue reading “Another Court Gets It Right: Class Certification Must Focus On Plaintiffs’ Theory Of Liability, Not Its Merits” →

Non-exempt workers earning an hourly wage in California are subject to state minimum and overtime requirements under California Labor Code sections 510 and 1194. However, there are some narrow exceptions which exempt these workers from these basic wage protections. One of these is the outside sales exemption, under Section 1171 of the California Labor Code.

The Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Orders define an outside salesperson as a person who “customarily and regularly works more than half the working time away from the employer’s place of business selling tangible or intangible items or obtaining orders or contracts for products, services or use of facilities.”

Fortunately for California workers, this is an area of law in which courts have decided that workers are more strongly protected under California law than under the similar federal exemption. The California Supreme Court considered the difference between California and federal law vis-à-vis the meaning and scope of the outside salesperson exemption in detail in Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Company (1999) 20 Cal.4th 785. Continue reading “Are Salespeople Exempt from Overtime under California Law?” →

Class actions are important tools for protecting the rights of workers-particularly those workers on the lower rungs of the economic ladder.  When large numbers of these workers are denied their rights in the workplace-such as overtime pay or meal and rest breaks, they can join together in a class action to demand justice.

Large and powerful companies that have been subject to this type of litigation hate class actions.  And it is no secret that these business interests have seduced the conservative faction of the United States Supreme Court into doing their bidding.  In decision after decision, those same five justices have contorted the law, the facts, and their rational facilities, in an attempt to gut the class action device.  Arbitration (Concepcion), removal to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (Standard Fire), and class certification itself (Dukes) have all been manipulated in an overt effort to prevent poor and working class people from having their day in court.

Thankfully, there are many brave and conscientious judges who have resisted this trend.  For example, on May 28, 2013, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in Leyva v. Medline Industries, Inc.  Leyva addressed the critical issue of whether individual damages calculations can defeat commonality for the purpose of class certification.  For many years, in both the state and federal courts, the answer to that question had been no.  See, e.g., Blackie v. Barrack, 524 F.2d 891, 905 (9^th Cir. 1975); Brinker v. Superior Court, 273 P.3d 513, 546 (2012). Continue reading “A Victory For Low-Wage Workers: Class Actions Remain The Best Way To Protect The Rights Of Large Numbers Of Employees” →