Court of Appeal: Rare Opinion on Inside Sales Exemption

Tyrone Muldrow and a class of recruiters sued their employer, Surrex Solutions Corporation,  for unpaid overtime, meals and breaks.  The trial court held that the employees were exempt undre the "inside sales exemption" and that the company had adequately provided meals and breaks.  The Supreme Court issued a "grant and hold" order pending the decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004, 1037.

On remand after Brinker, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed its earlier decision.  It's blogworthy because of the discussion of the "inside sales exemption" under the wage order .

The exemption is contained in both wage order 4 and wage order 7.  The court did not address which wage order applies, but quoted from wage order 7:

California Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Order No. 7-2001 exempts from this statutory overtime compensation requirement "any employee whose earnings exceed one and one-half (1 1/2) times the minimum wage if more than half of that employee's compensation represents commissions." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11070, subd. (3)(D).)

Under federal law, this is known as the "inside sales" or "7(i)" exemption.

For the above exemption to apply, the employees had to be "selling" a product or service. 

Appellants' primary job duty was to recruit "candidates" for employer "clients." Surrex's clients would place "job orders" with Surrex and appellants would search for potential candidates to fill the job orders. Appellants would use various resources to find candidates, including an internal database that Surrex maintained and various "on-line job boards."

The court decided that these recruiters were "selling" the recruiting services, and that the other activities they engaged in were part of the sales process.

The court then decided that the compensation the recruiters received were "commissions" because they were sufficiently related to the sales price - the revenue the business received for placements:

the sole argument that appellants offer to support their contention that the term "commissions" in the commissioned employees exemption (Cal. Code. Regs., tit. 8, § 11070, subd. (3)(D)) should be construed as excluding commission systems such as Surrex's, is that such a formula is "too complex." Appellants' contention that the Surrex's commission system is "too complex" is neither factually accurate nor legally relevant. The formula was clearly stated in the employees' employment agreements and, in most cases, could be calculated simply by knowing the candidate's "bill rate" and "pay rate" (both of which the consulting service managers, themselves, negotiated).15 In any event, appellants fail to cite any authority for the proposition that complexity is, or should be, a factor in determining whether a compensation scheme constitutes a commission under relevant California law.

The court also decided that the commission plan was "bona fide" because the commissions regularly exceeded draw.

So, the court decided that the trial court was correct because the inside sales exemption applies.


There are a couple of things the court did not decide that might have affected the outcome. First, the court did not appear to actually decide if Wage Order 4 or 7 is the correct one. The court quoted from Wage Order 7, which applies to all employees working in the "mercantile" industry.   The definition of "mercantile" applies to the sale of goods, not recruiting agencies. From the Wage Order: "'Mercantile Industry' means any industry, business, or establishment operated for the purpose of purchasing, selling, or distributing goods or commodities at wholesale or retail; or for the purpose of renting goods or commodities."

Rather, Wage Order 4 applies to occupations such as office workers, if an industry order does not apply.

The applicable Wage Order actually does not affect the exemption under California law because that exemption is contained in both Wage Order 4 and 7. (The Court should have cited the correct one, though).   The issue, though, is that the federal "7(i)" exemption applies only to "retail" establishments. In fact, the applicable Department of Labor regulations specifically exclude employment agencies from the definition of a retail establishment. See regulation here.  I can't say for certain that Surrex is not a "retail" establishment under federal law, but someone probably should take a look at that issue if he/she hasn't already. 

This is one of the few instances in which California law is less generous than federal law. Although an employee may be exempt under California law, if an employee is not "exempt" under federal law, then federal law will require overtime for work performed over 40 hours in a work week. I may have missed something, but the court's opinion does not seem to address federal law, or the wage order issue. Yet, the court does acknowledge the existence of the 7(i) exemption at footnote 14 of the opinion. Annnyyyway, I may be nuts, or someone has some splaining to do, or both! The message to our dear readers remains:   Please do not apply the inside sales exemption unless you consider both state and federal law.
 The case is Muldrow v. Surrex Solutions Corp. and the opinion is here.  

Random Post-Brinker Thoughts

I have taken more time to read Brinker.  Here are some thoughts to add on to yesterday's post.

1.  The Supreme Court tried to clarify when class actions should be certified.  The trial court will have a  lot of latitude to decide certification, as it has been since 2004's Sav-on decision.  But this opinion will give trial courts more encouragement to certify class actions. The Court limited the trial court's examinations of whether a case has legal merit at the class action stage to resolving a legal issue that affects common issues so much that class certification would be improper. The trial courts will still wrestle with this issue and class action practice is likely safe under this analysis.  As explained below, the Court's application of class action rules means that class actions based on common policies (such as rest periods) may be authorized more freely than courts have been allowing up to now.

1.5 The summary judgment motion will be a very important part of class action defense and should be considered early in the process to avoid class certification of claims that are based on a common policy, but have no merit.

2.  Rest period law:  The Court precisely explained to employers the rest period rules.  Policies must be drafted in accordance with this formula:  "the rest time that must be permitted as the number of hours worked divided by four, rounded down if the fractional part is half or less than half and up if it is more (a “major fraction”), times 10 minutes."

You don't like math?  Well they explain it even better here, because they incorporate the fact that employees with shifts of fewer than 3.5 hours in length are not entitled to any rest period: "Employees are entitled to 10 minutes’ rest for shifts from three and one-half to six hours in length, 20 minutes for shifts of more than six hours up to 10 hours, 30 minutes for shifts of more than 10 hours up to 14 hours, and so on.... an employee would receive no rest break time for shifts of two hours or less, 10 minutes for shifts lasting more than two hours up to six hours, 20 minutes for shifts lasting more than six hours up to 10 hours, and so on." 

Caveat re scheduling:  although the court added up the rest-period minutes above, the law requires paid, 10-minute rest periods during each four hour work period.  So, the employer should draft its policies such that the rest periods fall somewhere in the middle of each four-hour work period.  Here is the rule regarding timing:

Employers are thus subject to a duty to make a good faith effort to authorize and permit rest breaks in the middle of each work period, but may deviate from that preferred course where practical considerations render it infeasible. ....

in the context of an eight-hour shift, “[a]s a general matter,” one rest break should fall on either side of the meal break. (Ibid.)

3. The Court then held that the trial court properly certified a rest-period class because Brinker's rest-period policy was uniformly applied and was vague enough to permit the argument that it violated the law because it did not specifically authorize rest periods when employees work "major fractions" of four-hour periods.  Here is the policy:

Under the written policy, employees receive one 10-minute rest break per four hours worked: “If I work over 3.5 hours during my shift, I understand that I am eligible for one ten minute rest break for each four hours that I work.”

As you can see, this policy permits the argument that employees who worked 6.5 hours were not given a second rest period, even under the policy.  So, the Court's holding re class certification re-opens the door for rest period class actions. Therefore, employers must have a more detailed rest-period policy that spells out rest periods are authorized and permitted in accordance with the formula above, or a class action lawyer can argue that the vague, common policy is applied contrary to law.  Additionally, management must be educated to enforce rest period policies in accordance with their terms when they schedule. Make with the drafting!

4.  Meal periods.   I pulled the quotes in my post yesterday.  Here are some more thoughts.
- Meal period policies should emphasize they are "duty free," meaning the employee can come and go and leave the premises as desired.

the wage order’s meal period requirement is satisfied if the employee (1) has at least 30 minutes uninterrupted, (2) is free to leave the premises, and (3) is relieved of all duty for the entire period.

Under the class action rule the Court developed, a vague policy is subject to an argument that the common policy violates the law.  So, policies should be explicit.

- Employers will be liable for regular straight time or overtime pay when the know or should have known that employees work through meal periods.  That's normal, because you have to pay employees when you "suffer or permit" them to work.  So, if employees don't punch out for meals, you cannot "auto-deduct" meal period time. As we have said before, the remedy for employees who do not comply with policies is discipline, not docking pay.

- Managers who prevent employees from taking meal periods per policy (such as discouraging meal periods) may expose the company to liability for meal period premiums.  When there is a "corporate culture" of discouraging the meal period, look for class actions based on a "common de facto policy."

- The legally compliant policy must provide that a meal period must start before the sixth hour of work begins.  That means, an employee who starts at 9 must be given a meal break by 2 pm.  Again, employers do not have to police the requirement, but the policy should be explicit to avoid the argument that the policy allows for illegal lunches.

- The legally compliant policy also should provide for a second meal period that starts before the eleventh hour of work begins.  There is a waiver of the second meal period allowed upon certain conditions, and that can be included as well.

- Caveat:  Know your business's wage order!  I am going over the general rules here (Wage Order 4, 5, 7 - the biggies).  There are different meal period provisions in some of the lesser used wage orders, such as Wage Order 12, applicable in the film industry. That Wage Order requires meals at six-hour intervals, not before the sixth hour and before the eleventh hour.

5.  Off the clock.  The Supreme Court decided that no "off the clock" work class would be allowed because (1) Brinker had an express and specific policy prohibiting off the clock work and (2) the only evidence in support of class certification was anecdotes about specific instances.  The Court noted the absence of a "de facto" policy requiring workers to work off the clock.  So, it pays to have a policy barring off the clock work.  We also like sign offs on time cards / time sheets certifying that employees reported all time worked, and verifying they know not to work off the clock.

Well, that's it for now.  I'm sure we'll have more down the road.  I hope this has been helpful.

Greg

Brinker: Employers Need Not Force Meal Periods

I will digest the Court's unanimous Brinker opinion a bit later. Those of you waiting to read it, it is here.

There is a long discussion of class certification in wage hour cases, which I will analyze later.  But
here are the money quotes on rest periods / meal periods.  At first read, this is total victory for the employer's position:

Rest periods:

Employees are entitled to 10 minutes’ rest for shifts from three and one-half to six hours in length, 20 minutes for shifts of more than six hours up to 10 hours, 30 minutes for shifts of more than 10 hours up to 14 hours, and so on.* * * 

Hohnbaum asserts employers have a legal duty to permit their employees a rest period before any meal period. Construing the plain language of the operative wage order, we find no such requirement and agree with the Court of Appeal, which likewise rejected this contention.

* * *

in the context of an eight-hour shift, “[a]s a general matter,” one rest break should fall on either side of the meal break. (Ibid.) Shorter or longer shifts and other factors that render such scheduling impracticable may alter this general rule.

Meal Periods:

Hohnbaum contends that an employer has one additional obligation: to ensure that employees do no work during meal periods. . . . We are not persuaded. The difficulty with the view that an employer must ensure no work is done—i.e., prohibit work—is that it lacks any textual basis in the wage order or statute.

* * *

If work does continue, the employer will not be liable for premium pay. At most, it will be liable for straight pay, and then only when it “knew or reasonably should have known that the worker was working through the authorized meal period.”

Proof an employer had knowledge of employees working through meal periods will not alone subject the employer to liability for premium pay; employees cannot manipulate the flexibility granted them by employers to use their breaks as they see fit to generate such liability. On the other hand, an employer may not undermine a formal policy of providing meal breaks by pressuring employees to perform their duties in ways that omit breaks.

* * *

To summarize: An employer’s duty with respect to meal breaks under both section 512, subdivision (a) and Wage Order No. 5 is an obligation to provide a meal period to its employees. The employer satisfies this obligation if it relieves its employees of all duty, relinquishes control over their activities and permits them a reasonable opportunity to take an uninterrupted 30-minute break, and does not impede or discourage them from doing so. What will suffice may vary from industry to industry, and we cannot in the context of this class certification proceeding delineate the full range of approaches that in each instance might be sufficient to satisfy the law.

On the other hand, the employer is not obligated to police meal breaks and ensure no work thereafter is performed. Bona fide relief from duty and the relinquishing of control satisfies the employer’s obligations, and work by a relieved employee during a meal break does not thereby place the employer in violation of its obligations and create liability for premium pay under Wage Order No. 5, subdivision 11(B) and Labor Code section 226.7, subdivision (b).

And finally - no "rolling 5 hour" meal periods.

We conclude that, absent waiver, section 512 requires a first meal period no later than the end of an employee’s fifth hour of work, and a second meal period no later than the end of an employee’s 10th hour of work. We conclude further that, contrary to Hohnbaum’s argument, Wage Order No. 5 does not impose additional timing requirements.

   

California Supreme Court to Revisit Arbitration Ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court in November ordered the California Supreme Court to revisit its decision in Sonic-Calabasas A v. Moreno.  So, the California Supreme Court just issued the following order:

In light of the United States Supreme Court's order vacating our judgment in the above-entitled case and remanding the cause to this court "for further consideration in light of AT&T Mobility LLC. v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. __ (2011) [131 S.Ct. 1740]," the parties are requested to brief the significance of that case. The parties are requested to file and serve simultaneous briefs by February 10, 2012, and may file and serve reply briefs by February 24, 2012.

We posted about Sonic-Calabasas here.


What's going on here, is that the California Supreme Court decided in Sonic-Calabasas A, 4-3, that an arbitration agreement requiring employees to arbitrate instead of going through the labor commissioner's informal hearing procedure was unlawful. The decision in my opinion cannot survive the Fedreal Arbitration Act, particularly after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in AT&T v. Concepcion (discussed here).


So, there will be a round of briefing and then the Court will probably schedule oral argument in the future and issue a new opinion.

DGV

NLRB Decide Class Action Waivers Violate the National Labor Relations Act

If you need more convincing that the National Labor Relations Board's work will affect the private-sector workplace (even after all the Facebook hoopla), here it is.

DR Horton, a home builder, imposed a mandatory arbitration agreement. The agreement required the employee to assert all claims related to his employment in arbitration.  The agreement further states:

that the arbitrator “may hear only Employee’s individual claims,” “will not have the author- ity to consolidate the claims of other employ- ees,” and “does not have authority to fashion a proceeding as a class or collective action or to award relief to a group or class of employees in one arbitration proceeding”

The NLRB first held, in agreement with its administrative law judge, that the arbitration agreement unlawfully precluded an employee from filing a charge with the NLRB.  So, arbitration agreements must carve-out the right to do so.

The groundbreaking part of the decision is that requiring an employee to arbitrate all claims and only on an individual basis violates the National Labor Relations Act's guarantee of the right to engage in "concerted activity":

[The arbitration agreement] requires employees, as a condition of their employment, to refrain from bringing collective or class claims in any forum: in court, because the [agreement] waives their right to a judicial forum; in arbitration, because the [agreement] provides that the arbitrator cannot consolidate claims or award collective relief. The [agreement] thus clearly and expressly bars employees from exercising substantive rights that have long been held protected by Section 7 of the NLRA.

The Board decided this case with just two members, because the lone Republican (Member Hayes) recused himself.  It is unfathomable why the Board did not wait until it had a full complement for such an important decision, but that's the way things go.  We'll see if the courts decide that the decision is invalid under the Supreme Court's decision in New Process Steel v. NLRB (discussed here) (Board must have three member quorum).  I did not research whether 2 + 1 recused member is sufficient or whether New Process Steel will apply.

The Board was careful to note that an arbitration agreement that permits class actions to be filed in court, while mandating arbitration of individual claims would be lawful:

We need not and do not mandate class arbitration in order to protect employees’ rights under the NLRA. Rather, we hold only that employers may not compel employees to waive their NLRA right to collectively pursue litigation of employment claims in all forums, arbitral and judicial. So long as the employer leaves open a judicial forum for class and collective claims, employees’ NLRA rights are preserved without requiring the availability of classwide arbitration. Employers re- main free to insist that arbitral proceedings be conducted on an individual basis.

This decision likely will be challenged in appeals court and then to the Supreme Court.  So, the arbitration see-saw is not going to stop swaying yet.  For now, though, arbitration agreements containing class action waivers are subject to attack before the National Labor Relations Board.  Plaintiff lawyers thinking of challenging arbitration agreements on this basis in court may run into something called "Garmon" preemption. :)

So, to sum up:
- class waivers in arbitration agreements are lawful, if the arbitration agreement applies only to claims brought on an individual basis;
- an arbitration agreement cannot prevent an employee from filing a charge
- this decision applies only to employers covered by the National Labor Relations Act (so it does not cover certain small employers, agriculture, government employees, etc.) Most private sector employers, union and non-union, are covered.
- this decision is subject to further review, and there will be lots of it.

The case is DR Horton and the decision is here.

DGV

Dukes v. Walmart Fallout

Eveyone knows about the Dukes v. Walmart case (post is here). Well, Ellis v. Costco is another "big box" retailer case, in which female managers challenged Costco's promotion practices.

According to the opinion, Costco does not document or set concrete standards re promotion to General Manager and it always promotes from within the ranks of its AGMs.  Several female Costco employees brought a nationwide class action, claiming Costco's promotion practices discriminated against women.

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of class certification.  The opinion finds many errors with the district court's reasoning, mainly because of Dukes' interpretation of the class action standards in federal court (Rule 23).   For example, the district court failed to conduct a "rigorous analysis" regarding whether a common question of law or fact would affect the entire proposed class's rights to recovery. The court of appeals also held the district court did not consider whether individual circumstances rendered the plaintiffs incapable of proving the "typicality" element.  Costco put forward evidence regarding the named plaintiffs that appeared to explain individualized reasons why each plaintiff did not succeed.

The court of appeals also rejected certification under Rule 23(b), which permits class certification in cases where the relief sought is primarily an injunction rather than damages.  Again, relying on Dukes, the court of appeals noted Walmart precludes certification under Rule 23(b)(2) when each class member would be entitled to an award of money damages. Moreover, former employees cannot bring claims for injunctive relief, as injunctions operate prospectively and former employees will have no stake in them.

There is more. But this case places into focus that Dukes will have a profound effect on large employment law class actions in federal court. It remains to be seen how California courts deal with Dukes, but the state's courts do rely on federal law when evaluating class actions.

The case is Ellis v. Costco and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal Steps Around Concepcion

So, you may have heard (over and over again), the U.S. Supreme Court in AT&T Mobility Services v. Concepcion (discussed here, article here)  decided that California cannot hold arbitration agreements unconscionable because they require only individuals to arbitrate and prohibit class actions in arbitration.

The first Court of Appeal to address post-Concepcion arbitration agreements is in Brown v. Ralphs Grocery.   A wage-hour class action, the plaintiffs also sought relief under California's Private Attorney General Act, or PAGA, which allows recovery of penalties on behalf of the named plaintiff and other, unnamed, aggrieved employees.  The penalty money is split 75/25 with the state.  See generally Labor Code Section 2699.

The trial court held that the class action waiver in Ralphs arbitration agreement was unconscionable, following the California Supreme Court's decision in Gentry v. Superior Court.  But the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated Gentry in the Concepcion case.

The Court of Appeal neatly side-stepped that little problem. Instead, the court held that the plaintiff failed to establish via "substantial evidence" that the class action waiver was indeed unconscionable under Gentry.

In doing so, the Court established that class action waivers are not automatically unconscionable under Gentry, and that the plaintiff had to produce evidence satisfying Gentry's four-factor test. Of course, this is all moot, because Gentry is not good law.

The Court's second task was to consider whether the PAGA claim-waiver in the arbitration agreement was unconscionable.  Here, the Court decided Concepcion did not apply. That is because, the court reasoned, a PAGA claim is asserted by the individual, not a "class."  Without a class, Concepcion would not apply - directly.   Rather, the plaintiff would go to arbitration and litigate the PAGA claim. If successful, the plaintiff would distribute the "bounty" of the penalties to the state and keep 25% for him or herself. Given there was a waiver of PAGA claims in the arbitration agreement, though, the court said that the agreement prohibiting arbitration of PAGA claims was unconscionable.

The decision may not survive on the books if the Supreme Court (California or US) decides to accept review.  On review, it will be interesting to see if, following Concepcion, the parties to an arbitration agreement may carve-out claims that can and cannot be arbitrated.  In this instance, the question would be who would be authorized to pursue a PAGA claim if every employee signed an arbitration agreement.  If the PAGA waiver is enforceable, the result might be no one. That's something that the courts might find troubling.  

The plaintiff's bar is cheering this Brown decision as an end-run around Concepcion. But everyone should keep the corks in the champagne. There are other legal battles left to fight.  For example, is it ok for the parties to let the arbitrator decide whether an arbitration clause is unconscionable, and avoid some courts' rather anti-arbitration posture regarding employment arbitration agreements. (There, I said it).   The California courts have not yet definitively decided this issue just yet:

We note that in general, the question whether an arbitration agreement is unconscionable or contrary to public policy is for the court, not the arbitrator, to decide. [Citation.] Recently, the Supreme Court held, in a case brought in federal court, that the question of unconscionability of an arbitration agreement may be for the arbitrator to decide when the agreement has clearly and unmistakably delegated that issue to the arbitrator. (Rent-A-Center[, supra,] 561 U.S. , [177 L.Ed.2d 403, 130 S.Ct. 2772, 2778–2779].) Sonic[-Calabasas A, Inc.] has not contended that the arbitration agreement delegates responsibility to the arbitrator to decide questions of the agreement's unconscionability or violation of public policy. We thus have no need to decide whether Rent-A-Center's five-to-four decision applies to actions brought in state court (see Preston [v. Ferrer (2008)] 552 U.S. 346, 363 [169 L.Ed.2d 917, 128 S.Ct. 978] (dis. opn. of Thomas, J.) [reaffirming the view of Justice Thomas that the FAA does not apply to state court proceedings]), nor whether we would adopt a similar rule as a matter of state law.”

Hartley v. Superior Court, 2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 824 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. June 28, 2011) (quoting (Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno (2011) 51 Cal.4th 659, 688, fn. 12).

The fat lady is not singing, but she is kind of confused. Time will tell!  In the meantime, wait to see if Brown remains good law. If it does, don't include PAGA waivers in your arbitration agreements.  And talk to your lawyer about including clear and unmistakable language in your arbitration agreement concerning whether the court or the arbitrator will decide unconscionability.

The opinion in Brown v. Ralphs Grocery is here.

DGV

Supreme Court Rules on Dukes v. Walmart

The U.S. Supreme Court issues its opinion in Dukes v. Walmart.  Here is the opinion.

Wal-Mart, the country's largest employer, faces the largest employment law class action ever.  We've posted about it a number of times as it made its way through the courts.  The U.S. Supreme Court decided to review the case to see if the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a class action under the facts presented.  

The facts that give rise to the discrimination claims are as follows:

Pay and promotion decisions at Wal-Mart are generally committed to local managers’ broad discretion, which is exercised “in a largely subjective manner.” 222 F. R. D. 137, 145 (ND Cal. 2004). Local store managers may increase the wages of hourly employees (within limits) with only limited corporate oversight. As for salaried employees, such as store managers and their deputies, higher corporate authorities have discretion to set their pay within preestablished ranges. 

Promotions work in a similar fashion. Wal-Mart permits store managers to apply their own subjective criteria when selecting candidates as “support managers,” which isthe first step on the path to management. Admission to Wal-Mart’s management training program, however, does require that a candidate meet certain objective criteria,including an above-average performance rating, at least one year’s tenure in the applicant’s current position, and a willingness to relocate. But except for those requirements, regional and district managers have discretion to use their own judgment when selecting candidates for management training. Promotion to higher office—e.g., assistant manager, co-manager, or store manager—is similarly at the discretion of the employee’s superiors after prescribed objective factors are satisfied.

Thus, there is no "corporate wide" policy of intentional or even unintentional discrimination. Rather, the plaintiffs asserted the following theory regarding class-wide discrimination on behalf of hundreds of thousands of store level employees and supervisors:

local managers’ discretion over pay and promotions is exercised disproportionately in favor of men, leading to anunlawful disparate impact on female employees, see 42 U. S. C. §2000e–2(k). And, respondents say, because Wal-Mart is aware of this effect, its refusal to cabin its managers’ authority amounts to disparate treatment, see §2000e–2(a). . . . [T}the discrimination to which they have been subjected is common to all Wal-Mart’s female employees. The basic theory of their case is that a strong and uniform “corporate culture” permits bias against women to infect, perhaps subconsciously, the discretionary decisionmaking of each one of Wal-Mart’s thousands of managers—thereby making every woman at the company the victim of one common discriminatory practice.

The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, monetary relief that is considered "equitable" such as back pay, and punitive damages. They did not seek individual compensatory damages for emotional distress or front pay, because doing so would be unauthorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23,  contains a number of requirements.  The plaintiff must satisfy all of the 23(a) provisions:

“(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable,“(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, “(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and “(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class”

The Supreme Court held that there was insufficient common law or fact questions.  5-4, the Court explained what "common questions of law or fact" means:

Commonality requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the class members “have suffered the same injury,” Falcon, supra, at 157. This does not mean merely that they have all suffered a violation of the same provision of law. Title VII, for example, can be violated in many ways—by intentional discrimination, or by hiring and promotion criteria that result in disparate impact, and by the use of these practices on the part of many different superiors in a single company. Quite obviously,the mere claim by employees of the same company that they have suffered a Title VII injury, or even a disparate impact Title VII injury, gives no cause to believe that all their claims can productively be litigated at once. Their claims must depend upon a common contention—for example, the assertion of discriminatory bias on the part of the same supervisor. That common contention, moreover, must be of such a nature that it is capable of classwideresolution—which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.

The  Court, 5-4, squarely rejected that a common policy of decentralized decisions can support a class action where the standard requries proof of common issues of fact:

The only corporate policy that the plaintiffs’ evidence convincingly establishes is Wal-Mart’s “policy” of allowing discretion by local supervisors over employment matters.On its face, of course, that is just the opposite of a uniform employment practice that would provide the commonality needed for a class action; it is a policy against having uniform employment practices.

To sustain a class action under the federal rules, the plaintiff must establish one of the elements under Rule 23(b).  The plaintiffs in Dukes relied on Rule 23(b)(2):

Rule 23(b)(2) allows class treatment when “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” 

Therefore, Dukes did not rely on (b)(3), which is the familiar standard permitting damages when "common issues" predominate.  This is the basis for most class actions seeking money.  Unlike (b)(2), classes under (b)(3) are entitled to "opt out," and must receive adequate notice.  Rule 23(b)(2) is more concerned with injunctive and declaratory relief.

The question was whether the monetary relief that the plaintiffs sought was authorized under  Rule 23(b)(2). The Court (9-0) held that it was not:

Rule 23(b)(2) applies only when a single injunction or declaratory judgment would provide relief to each member of the class. It does not authorize class certification when each individual class member would be entitled to a different injunction or declaratory judgment against the defendant.

The Supreme Court held that "backpay" was not authorized generally by Rule 23(b)(2), and the only monetary relief available would be when it was intertwined with a particular injunction.  In Dukes' case, the injunction would not be common to each member of the class, anyway, so there could be no common monetary relief either.

So, we'll have an article, and you'll be hearing a lot about this case in the coming days.  I hope this brief summary was helpful.  It will result in less blockbuster class actions in federal court.  However, it does not necessarily mean that smaller class actions will be limited when there is a common practice causing a common injury.

Another Meal / Break Class Action Dies; Everyone Waiting for Brinker

Selections from the Supreme Court mailbag re Brinker meal period case.
Dear Supreme Court. The suspense is killing us. Please send Brinker soon - Love Plaintiff's bar.
Dear Supreme Court:  Take your time. - Best wishes, Defense bar.

The letter writers wait for the Supreme Court's decision in Brinker (on what the meal period laws require).  Meanwhile, the Courts of Appeal keep cranking out decisions that consistently hold meal periods do not have to be forced, and therefore meal period class actions are properly not certified when the employer demonstrates it "provides" the opportunity to take them.

The latest opinion re meal period class actions is called Lamps Plus Overtime Cases, or Flores v. Lamps Plus. As stated, the court decided that the class certification was properly denied, and along the way held that meal periods need not be forced, but merely must be authorized and permitted. The opinion is here.

Court of Appeal Affirms Denial of Class Certification in Retail Store Exemption Case

The Court of Appeal in Mora v. Big Lots Stores held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to certify a class of hundreds of Big Lots store managers. This is another exemption class action decision, but it's interesting for a few reasons.

First, the plaintiffs went after store managers of  HUGE discount stores, where the store manager was the only exempt manager, supervising dozens of employees. They should stop doing that. (They're not going to listen).

Second, the courts are tired of the argument that larger corporations standardize their policies such that managers are necessarily non-exempt. As I just discussed in the Marlo v. UPS post, that argument does not fly. (Good news for you larger corporations).

Third, the trial court credited the employer's detailed and individualized declarations of its managers over the boiler-plate declarations submitted by the plaintiffs. Winning a class certification motion may well turn on the quality of the declarations and other evidence submitted.

Finally, the court's opinion is a good example of how the Supreme Court's decision inSav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court  (2004) 34 Cal.4th 319 has affected class action law in California. The Court of Appeal does not disturb class certification decisions if (1) there is substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding (either way) and (2) the trial court applies the right legal standards. This of course can cut in favor of either the employees or the employer, depending on who won in the trial court. Needless to say, it's important to win there.


The case is Mora v. Big Lots Stores and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal Rejects Employment Application Class Action

Several years ago, the wage and hour "flavor of the month" was the employment application. (Lately, it's been "suitable seating" and paycheck stubs). Plaintiffs filed a series of class actions usually attacking employment applications' conviction inquiries. In California, an applicant is not required to disclose misdemeanor marijuana possession convictions more than two years old, you know.

Starbucks was sued under this theory some years ago. But the Court of Appeal held in 2008 that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue because they did not have marijuana convictions that would have had to have been disclosed.

In Starbucks I, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th 1436, we held that neither plaintiffs nor the tens of thousands of job applicants they purported to represent were entitled to recover statutory penalties where they did not have any marijuana convictions to disclose. We stated, "Only an individual with a marijuana-related conviction falls within the class of people the Legislature sought to protect." (Id. Id. at p. 1451.)

After the appeal, the trial court dismissed the named plaintiffs as lacking "standing" to sue. The plaintiffs' lawyers, though, attempted to substitute new plainitffs to continue the class action. They also limited the complaint and class to those applicants with applicable convictions.  Then, they asked the trial court to compel Starbucks to review its own applications and identify to the plaintiffs' counsel anyone who filled out an application more than two years after incurring a marijuana-related conviction. (I don't know how Starbucks would know this).  Starbucks appealed this discovery order, too.

The court of appeal held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the discovery. The court noted that California law protects the privacy of individuals with stale marijuana convictions. The plaintiffs wanted to invade that privacy to find a new plaintiff. But the court noted that there did not seem to be any interest in pursuing this class action among the potential 135,000 applicants to Starbucks during the relevant period, despite the prior published opinion.  So, the court denied discovery and let the superior court take the next step, to dismiss the class action (most likely).

The case is Starbucks v. Superior Court and the opinion is here.

 

Ninth Circuit Upholds De-Certification of Exemption Class Action

Michael Marlo was a supervisor for UPS.  He filed a class action alleging violation of California wage and hour laws, based on alleged mis-classification of his position as "exempt."  The district court initially certified a class, but later "de-certified" it, holding that common issues did not predominate over individual issues.
Marlo's individual claim went to trial. A jury found in his favor on some of the claims (that he was mis-classified in certain roles), but that he was exempt when he held an "on-road" supervisor position.  After judgment, Marlo appealed the district court's de-certification of the class.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court.  The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that common issues predominate. First, the court of appeals rejected the plaintiff's argument that UPS's "blanket" classification of a group of employees established common issues:

Marlo contends that he satisfied his burden of establishing predominance by submitting evidence of UPS’s centralized control, and uniform policies and procedures. But a blanket exemption policy “ ‘does not eliminate the need to make a factual determination as to whether class members are actually performing similar duties.’ ” In re Wells Fargo Home Mortg. Overtime Pay Litig., 571 F.3d 953, 959 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Specifically, the existence of a policy classifying FTS as exempt from overtime-pay requirements does not necessarily establish that FTS were misclassified, because the policy may have accurately classified some employees and misclassified others.

Of special significance, the court of appeals found that individual issues predominated because the employees' exempt status must be measured on a work-week by work-week basis:

Nor, contrary to Marlo’s assertion, did the district court err in requiring a week-by-week determination of exempt status. IWC Wage Order No. 9 states that in determining whether an employee is “primarily engaged” in exempt work, “[t]he work actually performed by the employee during the course of the workweek must, first and foremost, be examined and the amount of time the employee spends on such work . . .shall be considered.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, § 11090(1)(A)(1)(e). California courts have construed this requirement to mean that “[u]nder California law, the Court must determine whether any given class members (or all the class members) spend more than 51% of their time on managerial tasks in any given workweek.” Dunbar v. Albertson’s, Inc., 47 Cal. Rptr.3d 83, 86 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (emphasis added). Therefore, the district court did not incorrectly apply California law by requiring a week-by-week showing of work the FTS actually performed.

The case is Marlo v. UPS, Inc. and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal Upholds the Denial of Meal Period Class Action

While the world waits for the California Supreme Court to issue the fabled Brinker decision on meal periods, the courts of appeal continue to find that employers need only make available meal periods, and not force them. 

The latest opinion involves a class action over meal and rest breaks and wage statements. The trial court found that the company took great measures to provide meal breaks and that, therefore, it would be impossible to have a class claim over denial of same. The court also held that wage statement claims require proof of actual injury, which is another subject that the California Supreme Court is considering.

I don't see anything new here for HR to be concerned with. There is a heady discussion of when courts can rely on precedent that is subsequently "de-published," but that's only good for procedure geeks like moi.

This opinion is in Tien v. Tenet Healthcare and it is available here.

U.S. Supremes Grant Review of Walmart Class Action

So, I have posted on Dukes v. Walmart for a few years now... here and here.  This is the class action involving potentially 1.5 million current and former Walmart employees all over the country.
The U.S. Supreme Court decided to consider some issues that arise in federal class actions:

Whether claims for monetary relief can be certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)—which by its terms is limited to injunctive or corresponding declaratory relief—and, if so, under what circumstances.

and 

Whether the class certification ordered under Rule 23(b)(2) was consistent with Rule 23(a).

Here's a comprehensive post with cites to all kinds of relevant information from Ross Runkel's Employment Law blog. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 governs class actions. So, that's what the court is referring to above. In essence the court is deciding whether and to what extent a court can order money to be paid if a class action is certified under Rule 23(b)(2), which is supposed to apply only to class actions seeking injunctions.

Yes, on the surface, the legal issues may read like real snoozers for HR and most employment lawyers. But the case is gold for civil procedure junkies.  And don't let all that civil procedure jargon fool you. The stakes  are incredibly high and the court has the opportunity to shape how federal class actions in discrimination cases may be asserted. The court's decision could well shape how multi-state employers implement policies to avoid class action treatment of seemingly unrelated decisions.... So, stay tuned!

DGV

California Supreme Court: Waiting Time Penalties are..Penalties!

I know, sounds obvious. But folks were claiming that waiting time penalties, like meal period penalties, are a form of wage.  They were making this argument to permit claims for waiting time penalties under California's unfair competition law, because that law has a four year statute of limitations.

No sale, said the California Supreme Court in Pineda v. Bank of America (opinion here). In that case, Pineda received his wages four days late. He brought a class action for waiting time penalties. on behalf of everyone who was paid late under Bank of America's final pay policies. 

Pineda argued that he should be able to sue for waiting time penalties under California's unfair competition law (Bus. Prof. Code section 17200).  The Supreme Court rejected that argument because waiting time penalties are not "restitution," the only time that money is recoverable under the UCL.  Plaintiffs wanted to use the UCL to benefit from that law's four-year statute of limitations.

But the Supreme Court giveth, and taketh away.  The other issue decided today is that the statute of limitations for waiting time penalties is not affected by whether the employer ultimately paid the wages, albeit late.

The lower courts dismissed the case because he did not file his case within a year of his termination. The lower courts applied case law like in McCoy v. Superior Court (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 225, 229-230. There, the court of appeal held a one-year statute of limitations applies to waiting time penalty claims if the wages are paid as of the time of suit. 


The Supreme Court rejected McCoy and held that in all instances, the waiting time penalty statute, Labor Code Section 203, imposes the same statute of limitations. That section says that the statute of limitations for waiting time penalties is the same as the limitations period applied to the underlying wage claims.  The Supreme Court said that rule applies whether the wages are paid or not at the time of suit.

DGV

"Suitable Seating" Class Action Goes Forward

Retailers must provide "suitable seating" in accordance with the California Industrial Welfare Commission's Wage Order 7-2001, section 14. It says: "All working employees shall be provided with suitable seats when the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats."

Eugina Bright worked for 99 Cents Only Stores. She brought a class action alleging that, as a cashier, the company could reasonably have provided her with a seat suitable for cashiering. She sought penalties under PAGA (Private Attorneys General Act of 2004), claiming that the Wage Order violation supported PAGA penalties.

The trial court held that Ms. Bright was not "underpaid" and, therefore, could not collect penalties under Section 20 of the Wage Order. She also could not collect PAGA penalties, the trial court believed, because PAGA's extra "catchall" penalty does not apply when there is an applicable penalty in place. Sort of a "gotcha" ruling, which I admire.

But the court of appeal did not share my sense of irony, holding that PAGA penalties are available for wage order violations, even if Wage Order Section 20 penalties do not apply:

Section 2699, subdivision (f) makes its civil penalty applicable to violations of “all provisions of this code except those for which a civil penalty is specifically provided.” (§ 2699, subd. (f).) Section 1198, the code section Bright contends was violated, contains no civil penalty. (See § 1198.) Nowhere in the Labor Code is a civil penalty specifically provided for violations of the suitable seating requirement incorporated in section 1198. Thus, section 2699, subdivision (f), by its terms, allows for a civil penalty for violations of section 1198 based on failure to comply with the suitable seating requirement.

The case is Bright v. 99 c Only Stores, Inc. and the opinion is here.

DGV

Court of Appeal: Meal and Rest Breaks Need Not Be Forced

Everyone is waiting for the California Supreme Court to issue its decision in Brinker or Brinkley or both regarding whether meal / rest periods must be ensured or merely provided under California law. Well, nearly everyone.

The Court of Appeal in Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., just decided that meal and rest periods must be allowed, but that employees who choose not to take them cannot recover penalties. The court upheld dismissal of a class action given that each individual class member would have to prove he or she was prevented from taking given meal or rest periods.

The opinion in Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. is here.

No More Demurrers to Wage Hour Class Action Complaints?

The Court of Appeal in Guiterrez v. California Commerce Club, Inc. (opinion here) pretty much said that trial courts should not sustain demurrers (aka motions to strike class allegations) in wage-hour class actions. Ever. There are a few cases where demurrers have been sustained / granted. So, unless the Supreme Court or Legislature closes the door forever, it is not sanctionable to keep trying!

U.S. Supreme Court to Review California Arbitration

So, I asked in this post whether the California Supreme Court's jurisprudence on class action waivers in arbitration would survive the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Stoltt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds. There, the SCOTUS held that the Federal Arbitration Act does not authorized arbitrators to require class action arbitration when an arbitration agreement is silent.
The California Supreme Court, on the other hand, say that arbitration agreements cannot preclude class-wide arbitration.

Looks like we're going to find out. The U.S. Supremes just granted review of a 9th Circuit decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion. There, the Ninth Circuit held that a class action waiver was "unconscionable" under California law and that the FAA does not preempt California's unconscionability jurisprudence. Ross Runkel's arbitration blog posts the details here. This case will be argued next term, which begins in October 2010.

FAA Does Not Permit Claswide Arbitration Unless Parties Agree

Well, the U.S. Supreme Court may have made employment arbitration agreements really popular, until Congress decides to ban them.

The court held in a non-employment case, STOLT-NIELSEN S. A. ET AL. v. ANIMALFEEDS INTERNATIONAL CORP., that parties cannot force the arbitration of class actions unless the arbitration agreement permits it.

What if the agreement is silent about class arbitration? The court said silence does not mean consent.

In California, though, it is illegal to prohibit class action arbitration. So, what if the agreement is silent? Does that now mean you're prohibiting class arbitration because of the silence? If you argue that, under the Federal Arbitration Act, a silent agreement essentially prohibits class arbitration, where does that leave the arbitration agreement under California law?

Will the Federal Arbitration Act trump the California Supreme Court's decision in Gentry v. Superior Court (opinion here; post here), in which the California high court held that classwide arbitration waivers are illegal / unconscionable?

I know, so many questions. My opinion is: I think so. But I have never really understood how California arbitration agreement law has escaped the FAA anyway.

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision is here. Stay tuned!

DGV