Court of Appeal Affirms Summary Judgment on Sexual Harassment Claim and More

The Court of Appeal's decision in McCoy v. Pacific Maritime Association covers a lot of ground.  The opinion contains analysis of a variety of issues important for pre-trial and trial lawyers alike.

Here are the main issues -

1. The plaintiff's allegations of hostile work environment harassment and intentional infliction of emotional distress were not severe / pervasive / extreme / outrageous enough to reach the jury.  The plaintiff's claim is summarized here:

Appellant testified that she was harassed and shunned throughout her training period. Her complaints centered around one vessel planner in particular, Anthony Spanjol. Appellant testified that Spanjol would disrespect her by talking down to her and by putting his feet up on her work space. On one occasion, he yelled at her in front of other employees and called her stupid. One of appellant‟s supervisors, Marc Izzo, witnessed this incident, but left the room rather than address it. Appellant testified that when she complained about the incident she was told that she should go home and that Spanjol‟s behavior was just a part of his personality. She also stated that Spanjol often made racially derogatory remarks and engaged in sexually offensive behavior. He would comment on the buttocks of other female employees once they left the room, using terms like "„nigger ass‟" and "„J-Lo ass.‟" On at least one occasion, Spanjol also made crude gestures toward a woman when the woman‟s back was turned. He also mocked these women in appellant‟s presence. During another incident, appellant asked Spanjol a question regarding the unloading of a ship, but he ignored her and "never spoke to [her] again." Appellant testified that shortly after this incident she decided she could no longer handle the work environment and quit her job entirely.

The court held that the harassment was not severe or pervasive enough to require a jury's consideration. The court also held that the allegations of co-worker harassment were not actionable because the plaintiff did not prove that her employer knew or should have known of the conduct directed toward her.

2.  The court held that the trial court properly excluded evidence of harassment of other women because the only claim tried was retaliation.

3.   "Me-too" evidence of retaliation against other women should have been admitted.

4.   The plaintiff claimed denial of promotion based on retaliation. The court held she was entitled to damages if she prevailed even if she did not prove constructive discharge. The amount of those damages would have to be limited to what she actually lost (the difference between her pay and the pay if she had been promoted).  I don't understand how she would be entitled to that differential after she quit if it's not a constructive discharge.  If you voluntarily quit, you no longer receive pay...  I know, there I go thinking again.

5.   The court held that PMA, an association that negotiated collective bargaining agreements, was not the plaintiff's employer, and therefore could not be held liable for retaliation or other FEHA based actions.

So, lots of reasons to cite this case.  It's long, but worth reading.  The opinion in McCoy v. Pacific Maritime Association is here.

DGV
 

Court of Appeal: Meal/Rest/Wage Statement Class Action Should Be Certified

Safeway compensated truck drivers based on a compensation formula rather than a straight hourly rate: 

The collective bargaining agreements also obligated Safeway to utilize what it calls an activity based compensation system to determine the drivers‟ wages. Pay was calculated based on (1) mileage rates applied according to the number of miles driven, the time of day the trips were taken, and the locations where the trips began and ended; (2) fixed rates for certain tasks (e.g., rates for number of pallets delivered and picked up); (3) an hourly rate for a predetermined amount of minutes for certain tasks (e.g., paid for 10 minutes at hourly rate for set-up time at each store); and (4) an hourly rate for delays (e.g., breakdowns, impassable highways, time spent at scales, or other causes beyond the driver‟s control).

Drivers logged their mileage and activities for each trip manually on trip sheets. They also logged their activities into an onboard computer system known as the XATA system. Through XATA, Safeway tracked the drivers' moves, including their stops. The drivers input codes into XATA to record specific reasons for delays. Neither the trip sheets nor the XATA system, however, provided a place or means to record meal or rest periods.

 
So, the compensation system did not include separate payment for contractually and legally required rest periods.  Safeway argued that the paid rest periods were included in its compensation formula, presumably because the payment for miles and tasks assumed the rest periods would be taken during these activities.  Safeway also had drivers sign time cards to acknolwedge they were authorized and permitted to take rest periods. 
The trial court refused to certify a sub-class of rest period claims.  But the court of appeal reversed.  The court held Safeway's system of compensation was akin to a piece rate method of compensation.  And, the court decided, California law does not allow paid rest periods to be included in piece rates because it was an improper averaging of compensation: 

under the rule of Armenta v. Osmose, Inc. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 314, 323 (Armenta), rest periods must be separately compensated in a piece-rate system. Rest periods are considered hours worked and must be compensated. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 11070, subd. 12; 11090, subd. 12.) Under the California minimum wage law, employees must be compensated for each hour worked at either the legal minimum wage or the contractual hourly rate, and compliance cannot be determined by averaging hourly compensation.

The court expressly held that there was a common issue for determining liability - that the compensation system did not compensate employees for paid rest periods separately. The court did so by holding that piece rates may not include payment for rest periods. That is another way of saying that there was no payment for rest periods as a matter of law.

With all respect to the court of appeal, this decision seems to over-analyze the merits of the case.  The court seems to be saying the common proof is that all rest periods were paid incorrectly as a matter of law.  Without saying so, therefore, the court essentially granted summary judgment for the plaintiff rather than just class certification. 

While we're talking about the merits, I am not sure I understand why the piece rate payment cannot include implied payment for rest periods, as Safeway testified it did. An hourly pay rate does not expressly include payment for rest periods either.  During the hour that an employee takes a rest period, he is paid the same hourly rate, but simply works less.  During the hour that an employee does not take a rest period, she receives the same rate as if she did take one. Employers likely set their hourly rates under the assumption that the employee will take a rest period during one of every four hours worked.  The hourly rate therefore "averages" compensation, which the cout said could not be done.   Anyway, I don't get a vote.  So, I descend from my soap box, dejected.

The court also certified a meal period sub-class class on the basis that there was a common issue regarding whether Safeway adequately provided second meal periods before 2006, which is when the case was filed.  The court did not reach the plaintiff's argument that Safeway did not do enough to ensure drivers were relieved of duty, because the one common issue was enough for class certification.  This part of the decision may not be all that significant to employers who adequately provide for both meal periods per Brinker.  Safeway changed practices in 2006.

Finally, the court of appeal decided the wage statement sub-class should be certified.  The court agreed that the wage statement did not adequately spell out wage rates applicable to miles driven, such that the employees would have to refer to their own trip sheets to verify whether they received adequate compensation and engage in mathematical calculations:

Plaintiff‟s argument goes to the structure of the wage statements. As a result, his and the other drivers‟ claims of injury on account of the wage statements will be resolved by means of common proof. The structural omissions in the wage statements, and their alleged violation of Labor Code section 226, are, like employer policies, the types of matters best resolved by class adjudication.

There have been other decisions regarding  piece rates lately. See, e.g., here.  Employers should review their compensation plans to ensure compliance with minimum wage, overtime, meal and rest period laws.

This case is Bluford v. Safeway Stores, Inc. and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal - Managers Supervising While Performing Non-Exempt Tasks Are Non-Exempt

Safeway stores employ assistant managers who supervise many employees and have responsibility for hiring, supervising, budget compliance, etc.  But the stores' "operating budgets" and other policies allegedly require assistant managers to work the cash register and perform bookkeeping duties at times.  The assistant managers can supervise associates while "multi-tasking" / working the checkout line.

The plaintiff, Linda Heyen, was an assistant manager. The trial court found she worked about 54 hours a week, and spent a great deal of time at the check stand and performing bookkeeping tasks, even though she was able to supervise the store simultaneously.  An advisory jury concluded that Safeway did not prove Heyen was exempt.  The trial court instructed the jury that it should consider the primary purpose for "mixed" activities - those that involved both non-exempt work and supervision.

Safeway argued this:

So long as the manager is still actively functioning in his/her managerial capacity, and addressing his/her attention to managerial tasks such as observing how the store is running and considering how to make the store perform more efficiently and profitably, how to best model and train the store's employees in proper service activities, how to resolve any employee or operational problems that have arisen or are arising, and instructing employees in that regard, etc., all that time should be considered to fall on the 'exempt' side of the ledger—even if the manager is helping customers or handling product at the same time.

The court engaged in a detailed analysis of federal regulations, the wage order, and California case law, which you can read in the opinion. The punch line is this:

the federal regulations cited in Wage Order 7 expressly recognize that managers sometimes engage in tasks that do not involve the "actual management of the department [or] the supervision of the employees therein." (§ 541.108(a).) In those circumstances, the regulations do not say, as Safeway would have us hold, that those tasks should be considered "exempt" so long as the manager continues to supervise while performing them. Instead, the regulations look to the supervisor‟s reason or purpose for undertaking the task. If a task is performed because it is "helpful in supervising the employees or contribute[s] to the smooth functioning of the department for which [the supervisors] are responsible" (§ 541.108(a), (c)), the work is exempt; if not, it is nonexempt.

The court also found that when the company's expectations regarding the budgeted non-exempt hours, production standards, etc. virtually or expressly require the exempt manager to take on non-exempt tasks, the employer cannot argue that the employee did not live up to its expectations by performing non-exempt work.

So, employers, "working" / floor management, leads, etc. are more likely to be classified as "non-exempt" after this opinion, particularly when these managers are performing duties that non-exempt workers are simultaneously performing.   I predict the price of cheesy-poofs will be increasing or the checkout lines are going to be a little longer.

The case is Heyen v. Safeway and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal - Hourly Pay X Busy Employee = Non-Exempt Compensation

The plaintiff was an insurance adjuster.  He was paid $29 / hour for every hour worked, including overtime.  He always worked more than 40 hours per week.  In a wage-hour lawsuit, he claimed he was not properly classified as exempt because he was not paid on a salary basis.  (He challenged the duties test as well it appears).  The employer argued that he was never paid less than 40 X $29 because he always worked overtime. Therefore, he earned the equivalent of a salary.  The trial court bought that argument.

But the Court of Appeal reversed.

The question presented in this case is whether a compensation scheme based solely upon the number of hours worked, with no guaranteed minimum, can be considered a “salary” within the meaning of the pertinent wage and hour laws. We conclude that such a payment schedule is not a salary and, therefore, does not qualify the employee as exempt.

The employer argued "no harm, no foul," in that the employee always received more than 40 hours x $29 per hour, in that he was always working more than 40 hours.  But, said the court,

The problem here is that defendant stipulated to the fact that it “never paid [plaintiff] a guaranteed salary”; if he worked fewer claims “he made less money than if he worked more claims.” That is the same thing as saying that plaintiff was not paid “a predetermined amount” that “was not subject to reduction based upon the quantity of work performed.” He was not paid a salary. For that reason, defendant did not prove that the administrative exemption of Wage Order 4 applies in this case.

The court did not address whether the employee was properly classified as exempt based on his duties, because the salary issue destroyed his claim.

So, a salary is a predetermined sum, that is not reduced because of the quantity or quality of work performed.  To qualify for exempt status, the fixed salary must be at least 2 X minimum wage (currently $8.00 in California) X 40 hours.  Certain deductions from salary are authorized, as detailed in the federal FLSA regulations, 29 CFR 541.602 (here).

This case is Negri v. Koning & Associates and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal: Union Contracts Must Clearly and Unmistakably Waive Rights Under California Vacation Law

It's California employment law 101 that employers must pay out all "vested" vacation time when an employee's employment ends.  No "use it or lose it" and no limits on "carry over" are allowed under Labor Code Section 227.3.  There's an exception in the statute though, which says the statute applies "[u]nless otherwise provided by a collective-bargaining agreement."

What does "otherwise provided" mean?  Well employer Celite had a collective bargaining relationship, and their agreement provided as follows, according to the Court of Appeal:

Celite granted its employees between one and five weeks of vacation annually. Each January, Celite calculated a yearly "vacation allotment" based on each employee's length of employment and the number of hours they worked the year before. [The] employees terminated from Celite were entitled to "receive whatever vacation allotment is due them upon separation."[fn] For 25 years, both Celite and the Union understood this provision to refer to the "vacation allotment" as defined above. Accordingly, Celite paid terminated employees for the vacation time already allotted to them for the year of their termination, but did not pay them the vacation time they had accrued toward the next year's allotment.

The description above suggests that the contract required payment of whatever vacation balance the employee had, but did not take into account "accrual" of vacation during the current year.  Pretty clear to me.

 

Not clear enough for the Court of Appeal, though, and I don't get a vote.  The Court decided that because vacation pay is a significant state-law right, any waiver of 227.3's requirements had to be "clear and unmistakable." Here's what the Court said:

To be clear and unmistakable, a waiver must do more than speak in "'[b]road, general language." (Vasquez, supra, 80 Cal.App.4th at p. 435.) It must be specific, and mention either the statutory protection being waived or, at a minimum, the statute itself. (Accord, Hoover v. American Income Life Ins. Co. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1208.) The Agreements here neither mention pro rata vacation pay nor cite section 227.3. Celite points out that the Agreements "affirmatively address" vacation payments upon termination. But discussing a topic while at the same time saying nothing about the statutory right at issue does not affect a clear and unmistakable waiver of that right.

So, please check your union contracts and either negotiate a clear provision that waives Section 227.3 expressly and, preferably, quotes the statute.  This is why California release agreements quote Civil Code Section 1542, in case you've ever wondered about that.

On the bright side, the Court of Appeal decided the employer did not act "willfully" by following the collective bargaining agreement and, therefore, was not on the hook for "waiting time" penalties.  The court said that this was the first opinion deciding the standard for waivers under Section 227.3, and so the employer's mistake of law was not "willful."

Some times I wonder what all those class action plaintiff lawyers are doing after Brinker and Dukes v. Walmart put a damper on things.  (Ok, not really).  Well, here is the Court of Appeal riding to the rescue. 

It may be that the California or even U.S. Supreme Court may review this case, but the odds are long. If this case stays on the books, all union contracts prescribing a vacation payout provision that is less generous than Section 227.3 are subject to attack.  Make with the bargaining, employers.

The case is Choate v. Celite Corporation, and the opinion is here.

The Colorado Appeals Court Harshed My Mellow.

In California, we know that there is no right to work if you test positive for marijuana, not even medical marijuana.  See Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc., 174 P.3d 200 (2008).

But Colorado not only has "medical" marijuana, but also a new law making all marijuana use legal, medical or not.  Well, the Colorado Court of Appeals did not get the memo prohibiting employers from discharging those who test positive for marijuana.

Applying the state's previous "medical marijuana" law, the Court decided that even medicinal use is not a "lawful activity" under the Colorado lawful activity statute.  (If marijuana use was protected as a lawful activity, employers could not discharge an employee for engaging in it).

Why?  Here's what the court said:

because activities conducted in Colorado, including medical marijuana use, are subject to both state and federal law, . . . for an activity to be “lawful” in Colorado, it must be permitted by, and not contrary to, both state and federal law. Conversely, an activity that violates federal law but complies with state law cannot be “lawful” under the ordinary meaning of that term. Therefore, applying the plain and ordinary meaning, the term “lawful activity” in section 24-34-402.5, means that the activity – here, plaintiff’s medical marijuana use – must comply with both state and federal law.

One of the three judges dissented, arguing that a "lawful activity" should be defined only under state law.

It may be that the Colorado Supreme Court takes this up, or that the Colorado legislature or voters have something to say about this issue. For now, though, Colorado employees cannot "wake and bake" before work under the protection of the lawful activities law.

The case is Coats v. Dish Network and the opinion is here.

Attorney Demand Letter: Sting but No SLAPP

Ever get one of these attorney demand letters?

“As you are aware, I have been retained to represent Media Print & Copy (‘Media’). We are in the process of uncovering the substantial fraud, conversion and breaches of contract that your client has committed on my client. . . . To date we have uncovered damages exceeding $75,000, not including interest applied thereto, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. If your client does not agree to cooperate with our investigation and provide us with a repayment of such damages caused, we will be forced to proceed with filing a legal action against him, as well as reporting him to the California Attorney General, the Los Angeles District Attorney, the Internal Revenue Service regarding tax fraud, the Better Business Bureau, as well as to customers and vendors with whom he may be perpetrating the same fraud upon [sic].” The letter goes on to list Mendoza’s alleged transgressions, including failure to pay Media’s employees, sales taxes and bills.

Ouch. The threats. The insinuations.  The money.  Wait, criminal prosecution?

Well, Mendoza, the recipient of the above attorney demand letter, did not take this lying down. He sued the attorney, Hamzeh, for extortion, intentional infliction of emotional distress and unfair business practices.

But aren't demand letters protected speech?  And can't a lawyer sued for sending a demand letter use the "Anti-SLAPP" statute so they are not sued for representing their clients aggressively?

Yes.  Most of the time.  In this case, though, the attorney's letter exceeded the protections of the anti-SLAPP statute. Why?  Because there is no anti-SLAPP protection for threatening criminal prosecution unless the target pays money (i.e., extortion):

The threat to report a crime may constitute extortion even if the victim did in fact commit a crime. The threat to report a crime may in and of itself be legal. But when the threat to report a crime is coupled with a demand for money, the threat becomes illegal, regardless of whether the victim in fact owed the money demanded. (Flatley, supra, 39 Cal.4th at pp. 326-327.) “‘The law does not contemplate the use of criminal process as a means of collecting a debt.’ [Citations.]” (Ibid.) “Attorneys are not exempt from these principles in their professional conduct. Indeed, the Rules of Professional Conduct specifically prohibit attorneys from ‘threaten[ing] to present criminal, administration, or disciplinary charges to obtain an advantage in a civil dispute.’ (Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct, rule 5-100(A).)” (Id. at p. 327.)

Again, most attorneys know better.  And most attorney demand letters are protected from retaliatory lawsuits. But, in my experience, some attorneys go too far with their letters.  Perhaps it's enough to simply lay out the facts and explain why there is the potential for legal liability without calling the defendant a criminal, and without demanding money to refrain from reporting a crime.

If the demand goes too far, as in this case, the lawsuit alleging extortion against the would be plaintiff's counsel is not a SLAPP, but it could be painful.  ::rimshot:::

The case is Mendoza v. Hamzeh, and the opinion is here.

WebRep

currentVote

noRating

noWeight

9th Circuit Allows Wage Claim Based on End of Day Security Screen

Integrity Staffing Solutions employed temp warehouse workers in Nevada.  At the end of the workers' day, they had to pass through security screenings to minimize theft. They had to remove metal from pockets and pass through a metal detector.  Sometimes, they had to wait up to 25 minutes for the security check.

The plaintiffs brought a claim for off-the-clock work, claiming the screenings were part of the compensable work day in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. They also brought state law claims under Nevada law.  They claimed that they had to walk to the lunch room to punch out for meals, and had to undergo security screenings after lunch before returning to work. These took only 5 minutes.

The court of appeals held that (based on the plaintiffs' allegations in the complaint) waiting for security could be compensable time under the Fair Labor Standards Act:

Here, Busk and Castro have alleged that Integrity requires the security screenings, which must be conducted at work. They also allege that the screenings are intended to prevent employee theft – a plausible allegation since the employees apparently pass through the clearances only on their way out of work, not when they enter. As alleged, the security clearances are necessary to employees’ primary work as warehouse employees and done for Integrity’s benefit. Assuming, as we must, that these allegations are true, the plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim for relief.
***
Integrity allegedly requires the screening to prevent employee theft, a concern that stems from the nature of the employees’ work (specifically, their access to merchandise).

As for the claims that the plaintiffs were delayed from enjoying their unpaid meal period, the court of appeals was not convinced:

Busk and Castro alleged they were not “completely relieved from duty” because by placing the time clocks far from the lunchroom, Integrity forced upon them the “duty to walk to the lunch room in order to eat lunch.” But the district court correctly held that walking to the lunchroom is not a work duty. Walking to the lunchroom is not necessary to the plaintiffs’ principal work as warehouse employees. Moreover, though the Portal-to-Portal Act does not clearly preclude compensation for walking to the lunchroom, as it only expressly applies to walking before the workday starts

* * *

Finally, the first amended complaint alleges that employees had to pass through a security clearance on their way to the lunchroom. Assuming that the time passing through the security clearance on the way to lunch constitutes compensable work, the time alleged in this case is de minimis. See Lindow v. United States, 738 F.2d 1057, 1062–64 (9th Cir. 1984) (discussing de minimis exception). As alleged in the first amended complaint, the walk to and from the cafeteria takes “approximately five minutes” each way, though employees pass through security only on their way to the cafeteria, not on the return trip. The relatively minimal time expended on the clearance in this context differs from the 25-minute delay alleged for employees passing through security at day’s end. Therefore, the district court correctlydismissed this claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

Based on this case, employers should consider whether "bag checks" and other security screening at the end of the shift should paid time (at least in the Ninth Circuit), unless it happens quickly enough to be "de minimis."

Of interest to litigators, the Court of Appeals decided that a federal "opt in" class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act could proceed simultaneously with a state-law based "opt out" class action.

This case is Busk v. Integrity Staffing Solutions and the opinion is here.

U.S. Supreme Court Holds Settlement Offer Thwarted FLSA Collective Action

Laura Symczyk, a nurse, challenged her employer's policy of "auto-deducting" a half hour for meal breaks, claiming that she and others "similarly situated" worked "off the clock."  She brought a "collective action" under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, which is essentially an "opt-in" class action. That is, the other employees are given a chance to "opt in" to the action. In a class action, once certified, the unnamed class members are given a chance to "opt out" or they are bound by the judgment or settlement.

The courts never reached the auto-deduct issue.  The employer answered the complaint and simultaneously made an "offer of judgment" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. The offer was for $7500 plus attorneys fees and costs as determined by the court.  (Because it was the very beginning of the case, the employer must have figured the attorney's fees would be low).

The plaintiff ignored the Rule 68 offer.  The employer then brought a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the Rule 68 offer completely compensated the plaintiff for her claims, and rendered it "moot" because she no longer had a stake in the case.  Therefore, she had no basis for leading the collective action against the employer.

The lower courts agreed that the settlement offer would have given the plaintiff complete relief. The district court dismissed the claim, but the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held the class action could proceed because the employer was trying to "pick off" the name plaintiff.

The Supreme Court assumed without deciding that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer would "moot" a claim if it offered complete relief. The Court did so because the plaintiff conceded that point in the courts below.

Based on that assumption and the plaintiff's concession, the Court decided that the claim could not proceed:  Justice Thomas, writing for 5 justices, wrote:

In the absence of any claimant’s opting in, respondent’s suit became moot when her individual claim became moot, because she lacked any personal interest in representing others in this action. While the FLSA authorizes an aggrieved employee to bring an action on behalf ofhimself and “other employees similarly situated,” 29 U. S. C. §216(b), the mere presence of collective-action allegations in the complaint cannot save the suit frommootness once the individual claim is satisfied
***
[W]e conclude that respondent has no personal interest inrepresenting putative, unnamed claimants, nor any other continuing interest that would preserve her suit from mootness. Respondent’s suit was, therefore, appropriatelydismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Justice Kagan wrote for 4 dissenters.  She in essence argues that an unaccepted offer does not moot the case, which the majority did not decide because the plaintiff conceded the point and the lower courts so held.  Justice Kagan in essence "yelled" at the lower courts that this approach was "wrong, wrong, and wrong again."  (We'll see if those who criticize Justice Scalia when he gets sassy objects to her rather caustic opinion, which I enjoyed reading a lot by the way).

To me, the plaintiff should be able to reject an offer and continue litigating, hoping to do better than the offer of judgment.  The issue here is that the plaintiff agreed she could not have obtained a more favorable result on her individual claim.  Plaintiffs in future cases may not make that concession which, as Justice Kagan predicts, will render this case inapplicable to most future claims.

Anyway, it remains to be seen how this case will affect future FLSA collective actions.  California law regarding offers to compromise is governed by Code of Civil Procedure Section 998, so state-law cases are not directly affected.  But we will have to stay tuned to see whether California courts follow the federal approach.

The opinion is Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk and you can read it (and the dissent) here.

Catching Up - Friday Pot Pourri

Here are a few of the cases I should have mentioned, but missed:

In Lui v. City and County of San Francisco (opinion here), a police officer suffered a serious heart attack. He had a number of physical ailments and sought a job that did not involve the physical requirements of a police officer.  Under  a new directive, San Francisco police officers, even those assigned to administrative duties, had to perform certain functions. Upholding the trial court, the court of appeal decided that the officer could not succeed on claims for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, or failure to engage in the interactive process.  The officer could not perform several essential job functions. Although this case arises in the special context of police officers, the court's analysis of what is essential is important.

***

The Ninth Circuit held that Jennifer Westendorf did not make out a case of sexual harassment sufficient to get by summary judgment (!)  The comments and incidents she described, even though sexual in nature, and  though some were pretty darn risque I tell ya, were not severe or pervasive enough.  However, the court did allow the retaliation to go forward. The case is Westendorf v. West Coast Contractors (opinion here).

****

The Court of Appeal decided that Bingham McCutchen's arbitration agreement was unenforceable.  Interestingly, the arbitration agreement had a Massachusetts choice of law clause.  Unlike in most employment law-related cases, the court enforced the choice of law clause, over Bingham's objection. Why?   Glad you asked: Mass. law precluded agreements to arbitrate discrimination claims unless they were specifically addressed in detail in the arbitration agreement.  Too bad a non-compete was not involved. The court probably would not have recited how much California law loves choice of law clauses.  Anyway, the Court decided that the Massachusetts court rulings were not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act and, therefore, the arbitration agreement was unenforceable. Be careful of choice of law clauses, they may well be enforced!  This case is Harris v. Bingham McCutchen et al. and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal: CA Employer Violates Minimum Wage By Averaging Total Compensation Over Hours Worked

An auto dealership compensated its mechanics based on a "piece rate" system. For repairs, the company would pay the employees based on a standard period of time allowed for a repair (flag hours).  The pay rate was significantly higher than minimum wage.  So, if the job took longer than standard hours, there was enough wages to ensure the mechanic earned more than minimum wage.

But the mechanics spent significant time at work NOT performing repairs, such as in training, cleaning, etc.  The dealership would calculate the total hours worked vs. the compensation it would pay for flag hours.  If the pay rate fell below minimum wage, the dealership would make up the difference.  The dealership did not pay a separate hourly rate for non-repair time that would not have been covered under the piece rate.

Illegal, said the court of appeal. The main issue is whether the applicable Wage Order (Wage Order 4-2001), requires payment of at least minimum wage for each hour worked, or an average of minimum wage for all hours worked in the work week.  The trial court and Court of Appeal, relying on an earlier case, Armenta v. Osmose, Inc. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 314 agreed with the plaintiffs that the former interpretation was correct.

The bottom line is that piece-rate employees must be paid separately for work that does not fall within the scope of the work that is the subject of the piece rate.  The non-related hours must be paid at least at minimum wage.  Employers concerned about increased payroll costs may choose to reduce piece rates prospectively, and upon reasonable notice.  They should check with their lawyers first regarding how to do this.

While you have your lawyer on the phone, another wrinkle may be determining where the piece rate work ends and the non-related work begins.  What, exactly, goes into the calculation of the piece rate repair time?  If the employer over-includes non-related work into the piece rate, it risks liability if the work should have been classified as non-related.

This case is Gonzalez v. Downtown LA Motors and the opinion is here.

WebRep

currentVote

noRating

noWeight

Me Too? Too Far

"Me too" evidence is when the plaintiff attempts to prove discrimination against him or her by offering evidence that others suffered similar discrimination.  The courts admit this evidence as proof of intent or motive, where it otherwise would be excluded as "character" evidence.

The Court of Appeal rejected the attempted use of "me too" evidence in a case where an employee claimed his boss discriminated against him because of his Asian national origin.  But this employee did not seek to admit "me too" evidence to show that the boss discriminated against other Asians.  Rather, the employee tried to admit evidence showing the boss discriminated against anyone who was not "Arab."

The trial court excluded the evidence as more prejudicial than probative under Evidence Code Section 352. The Court of Appeal affirmed:

Here, Hatai alleged he is a person of “Asian or Japanese race or national origin or ancestry,” and that he suffered discrimination, harassment and retaliation on the basis of his national origin and/or race. Thus, the “me-too” doctrine entitled Hatai to present evidence that other employees at Caltrans of east Asian or Japanese descent had been subjected to similar discrimination. However, given the nature of Hatai‟s lawsuit, the “me-too” doctrine did not entitle Hatai to present evidence of discrimination against employees outside of Hatai’s protected class to show discrimination or harassment against Hatai.

 The case is Hatai v. Department of Transportation and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal Explains Invasion of Privacy Claim in California

Ignat worked for a Yum! Brands restaurant. She had bi-polar disorder.  While on a leave, her supervisor allegedly disclosed her condition to other employees, verbally.  Ignat sued for invasion of privacy, based on the common law claim "public disclosure of private facts."

The court of appeal reversed summary judgment.  The court explained that, contrary to the trial court's ruling, a claim for invasion of privacy based on disclosure of private facts is viable even if the disclosure is verbal as opposed to written:

We conclude that limiting liability for public disclosure of private facts to those recorded in a writing is contrary to the tort‟s purpose, which has been since its inception to allow a person to control the kind of information about himself made available to the public – in essence, to define his public persona. (See Briscoe, supra, 4 Cal.3d at p. 534; The Right to Privacy, supra, 4 Harv. L.Rev. at pp. 198-199.) While this restriction may have made sense in the 1890‟s – when no one dreamed of talk radio or confessional television – it certainly makes no sense now. Private facts can be just as widely disclosed – if not more so – through oral media as through written ones.

Because the trial court found no written dissemination of the plaintiff's condition, it ruled she could not prevail. The appellate court sent the case back to the trial court for re-evaluation.

However, the court also explained that the common law tort is not established based on mere disclosure to a few individuals. The court also distinguished between a claim for invasion of privacy based on the California constitution, and a common law claim.

Our Supreme Court regards the two legal theories as providing separate, albeit related, ways to insure privacy. The constitutional variety focuses on institutional record-keeping and does not require a wide dissemination of private information. (See Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th at pp. 35-37 [elements of constitutional privacy violation].) Liability for the common-law tort requires publicity; disclosure to a few people in limited circumstances does not violate the right. (Porten v. University of San Francisco (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 825, 840; Timperley v. Chase Collection Service (1969) 272 Cal.App.2d 697, 700; Schwartz v. Thiele (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 799, 805.) Moreover, the facts disclosed must be offensive or objectionable to a reasonable person. (See, e.g., Shulman, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 214.) If they are not, there is no liability. (See, e.g., Johnson v. Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Inc., supra, 43 Cal.App.3d at p. 892 [facts disclosed not "„so offensive as to shock the community‟s notions of decency.‟ [Citation.]"]; Carlisle v. Fawcett Publications, Inc. (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 733, 748.) The constitutional right, however, may be violated if any private record that was supposed to be kept confidential is disclosed, for example, a college transcript. (Porten v. University of San Francisco, supra, 64 Cal.App.3d at p. 827.)

Based on the papers filed in the case, Ignat was limited to the common law claim, and therefore will have to prove widespread dissemination.

This case underscores the need to limit communications about the nature of an employee's disability or other sensitive private facts that would be "so offensive as to shock the community" if disclosed.

The case is Ignat v. Yum Brands, Inc. and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal Affirms Denial of Class Certification

The court of appeal decided in a retail exemption case that the trial court ruled within its discretion to de-certify or preclude class action status.  The  case involved Sears automotive center managers and a dispute over whether they were correctly classified as exempt. The trial court issued a brief order denying certification, which the plaintiff appealed.

The appellate court's analysis focused on a few issues of interest. First, the trial court has discretion to credit one party's evidence over the other party's conflicting evidence. Second, the appellate court defers to the trial court's discretion by inquiring only whether there is substantial evidence supporting the trial court's ruling.  It does not matter if the other side also offered enough evidence to support a contrary ruling. 

Third, the court emphasized that an employer's uniform policy or classification of a group of employees as exempt is not going to suffice as a "predominating" common issue to warrant class action treatment. Rather, the trial court is supposed to determine whether the actual work performed by the potential class members is susceptible to common questions and answers.

And that brings us to the important part of the opinion. The court rejected the plaintiff's attempt to offer a statistician's opinion that one could "sample" a small group of managers to predict whether all class members were exempt or non-exempt.

To obtain class certification, Dailey was required to demonstrate the predominance of common questions of law or fact. . . . We have found no case, and Dailey has cited none, where a court has deemed a mere proposal for statistical sampling to be an adequate evidentiary substitute or demonstrating the requisite commonality, or suggested that statistical sampling may be used to manufacture predominate common issues where the factual record indicates none exist. If the commonality requirement could be satisfied merely on the basis of a sampling methodology proposal such as the one before us, it is hard to imagine that any proposed class action would not be certified.
***
[C]ourts have held that when the class action proponent fails to satisfy the threshold requirement of commonality, as occurred here, the trial court does not err in rejecting the use of statistical sampling or other methodologies to establish liability as to the whole proposed class. (See, e.g., Mora, supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at pp. 501, 509-510 [rejecting argument that trial court erred in failing to consider survey methodology proposed by plaintiffs' expert to measure the amount of time employees spent on exempt versus nonexempt tasks, in light of that court's reasonable conclusion that common questions of fact or law did not predominate over individual ones]; Dunbar v. Albertson's Inc. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1432 (Dunbar) [no error in court's conclusion — and in its implicit rejection of the use of surveys and exemplar evidence — that the "findings as to one grocery manager could not reasonably be extrapolated to others given the variation in their work"].)

 The court of appeal also rejected the notion that the absence of a formal policy regarding meals and breaks for exempt employees supports class certification:

Dailey also is not helped by evidence that Sears does not have formal written policies regarding rest breaks and meal periods for salaried managers, does not ensure that breaks are taken, and does not keep records of breaks these employees take. First, such evidence is consistent with Sears's contention that Managers and Assistant Managers are exempt employees. Second, to the extent this evidence relates to whether Managers and Assistant Managers actually take uninterrupted breaks, or to whether Sears enforces meal and rest periods, that evidence is not directly relevant after Brinker. (Brinker, supra, 53 Cal.4th at pp. 1034, 1040-1041.) Finally, the absence of a formal written policy explaining salaried managers' rights to meal and rest periods does not necessarily imply the existence of a uniform policy or widespread practice of either depriving these employees of meal and rest periods or requiring them to work during those periods. Sears presented substantial evidence that no one prevents Managers and Assistant Managers from taking meal and rest breaks, and they are free to do so as they deem appropriate. As explained previously, the trial court was entitled to credit this testimony over contrary inferences suggested by Dailey's evidence. (See, e.g., Sav-On, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 331.)

The case is Dailey v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. and the opinion is here.

Ninth Circuit: Class Action Erroneously Certified Given Wal-Mart v. Dukes

Back in 2004, employees of the Chinese Daily News started a class action, claiming mis-classification, unpaid overtime and denied meals and breaks.  The trial court eventually certified a class, and the employees won summary judgment on whether reporters for the newspaper qualified under the professional exemption.  The employees won millions of dollars after trial, which the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Not so fast, said the Supreme Court.  Following the Supreme Court's Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes decision (discussed here), the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's decision in this case.  The Ninth Circuit decided that Wal-Mart requires reconsideration of the decision and sent it back to the district court.

Why? The trial court did not apply the proper analysis (after Wal-Mart) to determine whether there is sufficient commonality to certify the class.  As explained by the Court:

On remand, the district court must determine whether the  claims of the proposed class “depend upon a common contention . . . of such a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution — 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.” Wal-Mart, 131 S. Ct. at 2551.

So, it's not enough that there are "common questions" in the abstract, because, as the Ninth Circuit stated (quoting Wal-Mart and its own later decision in Ellis v. Costco):

"any competently crafted class complaint literally raises common questions.” Wang [sic], 131 S. Ct. at 2551 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). “What matters to class certification is not the raising of common questions — even in droves — but, rather the capacity of a classwide proceeding to generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation.” Id. (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). Dissimilarities within the proposed class may “impede the generation of common answers.” Id. “If there is no evidence that the entire class was subject to the same allegedly
discriminatory practice, there is no question common to the class.” Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970, 983 (9th Cir. 2011).

The Ninth Circuit also decided that the district court would have to reconsider whether certification is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).  That rule permits monetary recovery in class action cases when

the court finds that the questions of law or fact  common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual  members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.

First, the district court over-relied on the employer's policies applicable to all employees, but without considering whether issues pertaining to individual claims and defenses would "predominate" over the common policy.  Second, the district court did not have the California Supreme Court's Brinker decision (you've heard of it, right?) to assess whether certification of a meal / rest claim was appropriate. 

Of note, the Ninth Circuit also wrote this, which will likely be of interest to class action litigators:

In Wal-Mart, the Supreme Court disapproved what it called “Trial by Formula,” wherein damages are determined for a sample set of class members and then applied by extrapolation to the rest of the class “without further individualized proceedings.” Wal-Mart, 131 S. Ct. at 2561. Employers are “entitled to individualized determinations of each employee’s eligibility” for monetary relief. Id. at 2560.
Employers are also entitled to litigate any individual affirmative defenses they may have to class members’ claims. Id. at 2561. 

The case is Wang v. Chinese Daily News and the opinion is here.

California Supremes Expanding Employment Law Docket

The California Supreme Court is taking up several cases for review that will have significant effects on California employment law.  Once the Supreme Court grants review, the lower court opinion is not precedent and cannot be cited in briefs or relied upon unless the Court says otherwise.

Here are two recent "grants," courtesy of the California bar's employment law section email blast (and thank you, Phyllis Cheng as always):

In this case, the court of appeal expanded appellate review of arbitration decisions beyond what was previously the law.  One of the reasons parties turn to arbitration is finality - no appeals unless there are very specific circumstances.  This case carved a huge loophole.  This case also rejected the employer's argument that it had an "honest belief" that an employee was faking the need for medical leave, justifying discharge.

Richey v. Autonation, Inc. (2012) 149 Cal.Rptr.3d 280 (SC S207536/B234711review granted 2/13/13) CFRA/honest belief defense Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) Is an employer’s honest belief that an employee was violating company policy or abusing medical leave a complete defense to the employee’s claim that the employer violated the Moore-Brown-Roberti Family Rights Act (Gov. Code, §§ 12945.1, 12945.2)? (2) Was the decision below to vacate the arbitration award in the employer’s favor consistent with the limited judicial review of arbitration awards? Review granted/brief due.

This one is a "grant and hold" that likely will depend on the outcome of the pending Iskanian decision, which addresses overlapping issues.  The Court is going to decide whether class action waivers are lawful in California after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in ATT Mobility v. Concepcion.

Franco v. Arakelian Enterprises, Inc. (2012) 149 Cal.Rptr.3d 530 (SC S207760/B232583 review granted 2/13/13) Class Action Waiver Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, S204032 (#12-97), which includes the following issue: Did AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. __ [131 S.Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742] impliedly overrule Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443 with respect to contractual class action waivers in the context of non-waivable labor law rights?  Review granted/briefing deferred. The High Court of course has a number of other significant employment law cases pending. f you want to review all of the cases the California Supreme Court has on its docket (employment law and otherwise), the Court keeps a list here.

Court of Appeal: Statutory PDL Maximum Isn't

In California, employees disabled by pregnancy are entitled to up to four months of job-protected leave during any period in which they are disabled.  The leave has not length of service requirement.  There is no employer job-site requirement either.  And those employees eligible for California Family Rights Act leave may have up to 12 weeks of that for baby bonding.   The California Family Rights Act does not include pregnancy disability as a "serious health condition."   So, time under that law does not run during pregnancy disability.  Get it?  If not, don't feel like you're the Lone Ranger. It's one of California's most confusing sets of laws.

So, what happens when an employee is disabled by pregnancy and uses up all four months of PDL before delivering the baby, or before  she is able to return to work?  We know the 12 weeeks of FMLA leave (if employee is eligible) are exhausted, because FMLA does run during pregnancy disability.  The CFRA time did not start to run yet unless the employer and employee agree, because pregnancy disability is not a covered condition under CFRA.  Can it be that a worker in California could run out of medical leave and be denied reinstatement?

Nah. The PDL statute's four months of leave, and the potential for seven months of combined PDL/CFRA, are not the last word on leaves for those with long periods of pregnancy disability.  How can this be?

Swissport gave its employee, Ana Sanchez, nineteen weeks of leave. That's all the four months of PDL and then tacked on her unused vacation time.  But Fuentes had not yet given birth.  She was due in October. But, her leave exhausted in July, Swissport terminated her employment. Sanchez sued, claiming, among other things, that Swissport owed her more leave as a form of "reasonable accommodation" under California's anti-disability discrimination provisions contained in the Fair Employment and Housing Act.  The trial court dismissed her case because Swissport had provided her with all statutory leave to which she was entitled.

Leave in excess of statute, however, can be a form of "reasonable accommodation" under disability discrimination law.  Under California law it has to be reasonably definite in duration and effective, meaning that it is likely that at the end of a reasonably definite leave, the employee will be able to perform her essential job functions, with or without accommodation.

So, stautes collide; judges have to sort out the wreckage.  Here, the Court of Appeal decided that the limiting language in the PDL statute does not "supplant" the general obligation to grant reasonable accommodation to an employee with a disability.  That also means that the employee is not entitled to indefinite leave, or additional leave that would cause undue hardship.  In this case, however, the employer discharged the employee for exceeding four months of leave, without any "interactive process" or attempt to accommodate.

The bottom line, then, is that most employees disabled by pregnancy will be entitled to leave until they recover from childbirth, unless the period of leave sought is indefinite, or undue hardship would result.

This case is Sanchez v. Swissport and the opinion is here.