Hunter Pyle to speak about Workers’ Rights at Swiss Conference

I will be speaking at two conferences in Lausanne, Switzerland on May 27 and 27, 2016, along with a Gear-and-Gavel_dark-bluecolleague, Todd Jackson, of Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow.  We have been invited by a Swiss attorney and law professor, Bettina Kahil.  Professor Kahil audited our employment law course at Berkeley Law School in 2015. (more…)

Article III Standing and the U.S. Supreme Court

One of the big picture struggles playing out in federal courts is how much injury a plaintiff must suffer in order to have standing to sue under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.  This issue is important because many laws provide rights to employees that are procedural in nature.  For example, California Labor Code Gear-and-Gavel_dark-bluesection 226 requires companies to provide certain information on an employee’s pay stub.  Similarly, California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA) requires that companies give notice before running a background check on an employee.  A heightened standing requirement could impact the ability of employees to pursue such claims in federal court.  (more…)

Representative Evidence May Be Used to Prove Class Action Wage Claims

In a case of national importance, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that workers could use representative or statistical evidence to prove their claims for overtime under the Fair Labor Gear-and-Gavel_blackStandards Act (“FLSA”). Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036 (2016) (“Tyson Foods”). The case involved workers at a meat-processing plant in Iowa. They claimed that Tyson Foods did not pay them for the time they spent putting on and taking off (“donning and doffing”) protective equipment for their dangerous work, or for the time they spent walking to and from their workstations in the plant. At trial the workers used a report from an industrial relations expert to show the amount of time they spent donning and doffing. The expert had done videotaped observations to find out how long these activities usually took and then averaged the times. The average times were added to each employee’s timesheets to determine which employees worked more than 40 hours per week if their donning and doffing time was taken into account. The trial court accepted this evidence and the jury awarded the workers $2.9 million in unpaid wages.  (more…)

Is Your Employer Required to Provide You With a Seat?

California employers require many employees to stand all day, despite the fact that they could provide seats if they wanted to.  This practice is common in the retail industry, among others.  But is it legal?

For certain employees, under certain circumstances, the answer is no.  Many of the California wage orders contain language requiring that “[a]ll working employees shall be provided with suitable seats when the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats.”  They also provide that “[w]hen employees are not engaged in the active duties of their employment and the nature of the work requires standing, an adequate number of suitable seats shall be placed in reasonable proximity to the work area and employees shall be permitted to use such seats when it does not interfere with the performance of their duties.”

When an employer fails to meet either of these requirements, it may be subject to penalties under California’s Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”).  Although the wage orders themselves do not provide for penalties for violating seating requirements, California Labor Code section 1198 prohibits employers from violating the wage orders.  PAGA permits employees to bring claims for civil penalties based upon violations of the Labor Code.  Therefore, employees can bring PAGA claims for failure to provide suitable seating in violation of the wage orders. (more…)

9th Circuit follows Supreme Court: Paying Off Lead Plaintiffs Doesn’t Moot Class Actions

In Chen v. Allstate Insurance Co., the first decision to take up the matter since Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, the Ninth Circuit has held that a company cannot pick off lead plaintiffs in a class action by paying them a full settlement.  This is an important ruling because some companies were attempting to argue that Gear-and-Gavel_dark-bluewhile Campbell-Ewald held that settlement offers did not moot potential class actions, settlement payments were somehow different.  Thus, in Chen, the defendant had offered $20,000 to settle the plaintiff’s claims.  When the plaintiff rejected that offer, the defendant put the money in an escrow account.  The defendant then argued that there was no longer any case or controversy because it had satisfied the plaintiff’s claims.

Both Chief U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton and the Ninth Circuit disagreed.  The court held that a claim becomes moot when a plaintiff receives complete relief on their claim, not when such relief is offered.  Depositing money in an escrow account is offering relief, but it not receiving it.

Class actions are an important tool for protecting the rights of large groups of people who have been wronged.  If you have a question about your rights, please feel free to contact Hunter Pyle Law for a free initial consultation.

 

The Timing of Rest Breaks: Before or After Meal Breaks, and Can a Company Combine Breaks into One Long Break?

Two questions have bedevilled practitioners representing workers in California ever since the California Supreme Court issued Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court in 2012:  In a shift that qualifies for two rest breaks and one meal break, are employers required to provide one rest break before the meal break Gear-and-Gavel_dark-blueand the other one after?  And, on a related note, can an employer combine multiple rest breaks into one long rest break?

In Rodriguez v. E.M.E., Inc. (April 22, 2016), the employees worked eight hour shifts.  The defendant provided them with one meal break and one 20 minute rest break that fell either before or after the meal break.  The Second District Court of Appeal used this scenario to provide some critical guidance with respect to when and how employers must schedule rest breaks. (more…)

Is a Public School Teacher Protected by the First Amendment When Communicating with School Administrators or Parents?

What happens if a public school teacher complains about the administration of a program?  Would the teacher’s complaints be protected by the First Amendment?  Not necessarily.Gear-and-Gavel_gold

 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the district court’s summary judgment in an action brought by a public school teacher who alleged she was wrongfully terminated in violation of her First Amendment rights after voicing concerns about her school’s special education program.  (Coomes v. Edmonds Sch. Dist. No. 15, No. 15, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5372 (9th Cir. Wash., Mar. 23, 2016)).  Plaintiff contended that her First Amendment rights were violated when the school district took adverse employment actions against her for expressing her views about the treatment of students in a program she managed.  The panel affirmed the portion of the decision regarding Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim.

(more…)

Supreme Court Limits Companies’ Ability to Pick-Off Class Action Plaintiffs

If a defendant offers to settle a class action plaintiff’s individual claims in full, but the plaintiff rejects the offer, is the class action moot?

In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez (Case No. 14-857), the plaintiff brought a class action consumer protection lawsuit under the Telephone Consumer ProtectionGear-and-Gavel_gold Act (TCPA) against a government contractor. Prior to class certification, the defendant extended a settlement offer to the individual named plaintiff which would have provided full relief of the plaintiff’s claims. The plaintiff refused the offer. The defendant argued that the settlement offer mooted the plaintiff’s class action claims because it provided him with complete relief, even though the offer was rejected.

The Supreme Court said no. (more…)

Animus and Intent in Disability Cases:  A Court Clarifies what Workers Must Show to Prevail in California  

A recent decision of a California Court of Appeal clarifies that a disabled worker is not required to show that their employer had the intention to discriminate against them in order to prevail in a lawsuit under the Fair Employment and Housing Act.  Rather, a disabled worker can prevail in their lawsuit by showing that Gear-and-Gavel_dark-bluethe employer took action against them because of their actual or perceived disability, regardless of whether the employer had an intent to discriminate.

In other words, a worker need not show that an employer harbored any ill will or discriminatory animus toward people with disabilities.  This clarification broadens the scope of disability cases, and sets such cases apart from other types of discrimination cases.  It should cause employers throughout the state to be more careful when taking action against disabled employees. (more…)

California Law Prohibits Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Against Interns and Volunteers

Did you know that California is one of only three states in the US to protect interns and volunteers from harassment and discrimination in the workplace?

If you are an intern, volunteer or apprentice in California, you have the right to be free from harassment and discrimination at work. Under the California Fair Gear-and-Gavel_goldEmployment and Housing Act (FEHA) (California Government Code 12940), it is unlawful for an employer to harass or discriminate against an intern, volunteer or participant in an apprenticeship training program on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, religion, or any other classification protected by law.   (more…)