United Airlines California Workers File Suit Due to Wage Statement Violations

Many workers, particularly those who work in the transportation industry, must travel for their job. For example, airline employees often travel and work for their employer in various states. What happens when one state’s employment laws are far more burdensome than the rest? 

The Details of the Case: Ward v. United Airlines, Inc. 

Case No. 16-16415 (9th Cir., Feb. 2, 2021)

United Airlines Granted Summary Judgement by District Court: 

After the District Court granted summary judgment to United Airlines for two consolidated actions brought by certified classes of United pilots and flight attendants that live in California, the Ninth Circuit reversed the summary judgment. The pilots and flight attendants allege that their wage statements from United Airlines violate California Labor Code 226.

Does California Labor Code 226 Apply? 

The panel put the question before the California Supreme Court: does California Labor Code 226 apply? After considering the facts of the cases, the California Supreme Court held that California Labor Code 226 applies if the “employee’s principal place of work is in California.” The California Supreme Court set forth the “Ward test” as a set of principles to define Section 226’s permissible reach. 

Applying Section 226 Under the Ward Test: 

According to the Ward test, Section 226 didn’t fall into either of the “invalid” categories. The panel also did not find merit in the Defendant’s argument that applying the Ward test directly regulates interstate commerce. The panel also rejected United Airlines’ argument that applying Section 226 to plaintiffs under the Ward test violated the dormant Commerce Clause. Instead, the panel held that the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 and the Railway Labor Act did not preempt the application of Section 226. 

Did United Airlines Comply with Section 226? 

While the California Supreme Court decided Section 226 applied in this case, they did not determine whether United Airlines complied with Section 226. The case was directed to district court to modify the class definitions, conform to the California Supreme Court’s definition of Section 226’s permissible reach, modify the class period in the Ward case to extend the date of judgment, determine if the Defendant complied with Section 226, and if not, determine what relief should be awarded to the Plaintiffs. 

In conclusion, transportation companies with employees based in California are bound by Section 226’s wage statement requirements unless they can prove that complying would pose a significant burden with substantial financial costs.

If you need help with employment law violations in the workplace, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP today. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Faulty Pay Stubs Result in Over $100M Award to Employees

The Ninth Circuit heard a California employer's appeal of a $102 million damages award for a class action suit alleging California Labor Code violations. Over $48 million of the award was designated for violations of the California Labor Code's itemized wage statement requirement. The additional $48 million covered penalties under PAGA (Private Attorneys General Act). Additional penalties were assessed against the employer due to PAGA penalties for violating the Labor Code's final wage statement provisions and PAGA penalties for violations of meal period mandates. 

Details of the Case: Robert Magadia v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Cal.

Case No.: 5:17-cv-00062

Does Proposition 22 Apply in this Situation? 

Currently, Proposition 22 is limited to app-based rideshare app and delivery companies. However, this legislation's passage could spur activists in other industries to bring serious arguments for independent contractors classification to California voters. 

Summary of the Case: Robert Magadia v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case had no monetary loss from the technical pay stub violation. The argument in the case focused primarily on whether the plaintiff suffered any injury sufficient enough to confer standing to sue under PAGA. The only alleged harm the plaintiff suffered was the inability to confirm he was paid fair compensation for his work as agreed. However, according to the plaintiff in the case, his injury was not the main issue. He argued that under PAGA, he was entitled to enforce state law and pursue relief on behalf of workers in similar situations (the class of aggrieved workers in the case was approximately 50,000). The violation claim occurred after the company failed to identify how bonuses were calculated into their workers' hourly rate for overtime calculations. 

Was the Labor Law Violation Intentional? 

Another question that came up during the case was whether or not the pay stub violation was intentional, which is required by statute before assessing damages. The ruling of the Ninth Circuit could narrow the trial courts' ability to impose PAGA penalties on California employers in cases where the plaintiff has not suffered financial harm. However, inadvertent violations that seem harmless can lead to significant penalties for California employers, particularly in situations where wage statements are not fully compliant with California Labor Code. 

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law protects you against labor law violations, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

2020 Chipotle Case Could Have Fundamentally Changed How FLSA Cases are Litigated

One of the most significant cases in class and collective litigation in 2020 was Chipotle Mexican Grill v. Scott. 

Details on the Case: Chipotle Mexican Grill v. Scott

Case No.: 17-2208, 2nd Circuit

The U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on a critical issue connected to collective action under the FLSA in 2020. The court was asked to consider what it means for a putative class of workers to be “similarly situated” for purposes of being considered a collective under FLSA. 

Who is “Similarly Situated” for FLSA Collective Actions? 

During Chipotle Mexican Grill v. Scott, parties involved claimed there was an “intractable conflict” among the federal courts on the issue of determining who is “similarly situated” for FLSA collective actions. This question and the resulting litigation could have had ground-shifting implications. However, after the parties involved signaled their intent to settle on December 31, 2020, the court did not take up the case even though it could have fundamentally reshaped how FLSA cases, in general, are handled and litigated. Even though this particular case wasn’t litigated, 2020 saw a steady shift in the courts on the issue of defining “similarly situated” for FLSA collective actions. 

The Plaintiffs: Chipotle Mexican Grill v. Scott

In Chipotle Mexican Grill v. Scott, seven named plaintiffs represented six putative classes (under Federal Rule of Civil Proc. 23(b)(3)). The plaintiffs also filed suit on their own behalf and on behalf of 516 additional individuals that opted in on a conditionally certified collective action under the FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act). The plaintiffs alleged that the company misclassified workers as exempt in violation of state labor laws. Collective plaintiffs alleged that the company misclassified them as exempt in violation of the FLSA. 

The “Similarly Situated” Issue: Chipotle Mexican Grill v. Scott

After the district court denied class certification, the Second Circuit affirmed the order denying class certification based on a lack of predominance and superiority. According to the record, the court could not find that the district court’s conclusion was outside the range of permissible decisions. However, the court did vacate the district’s court order to decertify the collective action based on a legal error. The Second Circuit Court found that the district court improperly analogized the standard for maintaining a collective action (under the FLSA to Rule 23 procedure). As the district court’s decision was based on the inaccurate analogy when they determined that the named plaintiffs and opt-in plaintiffs were not “similarly situated,” the 2nd Circuit Court vacated the order. The improper application of the “sliding scale” analogy to Rule 23 in this case improperly conflated section 216(b) with Rule 23 and the latter rule’s stricter requirements.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law protects you against labor law violations, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Did California Farm Retaliate Against Cannabis Workers that Voiced Virus Concerns?

Three sisters (Rachel, Alejandra, and Andrea Montelongo) allege that Valley Harvest LLC and Nug Farms, fired them because they raised concerns about working conditions at the cannabis farm. 

All the Details on the Case: Montelongo et al. v. Valley Harvest LLC et al.

Case Number: 5:21-cv-00235

Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Date Filed: Jan. 11, 2021

The Plaintiffs in the Case: Rachel Montelongo, Alejandra Montelongo, and Andrea Montelongo

Defendant: Valley Harvest LLC

The Plaintiffs in the Case: The Three Montelongo Sisters

The Plaintiffs in the case, the Montelongo sisters, are former marijuana farm workers who allege their former employer fired them for voicing complaints about working conditions during the coronavirus pandemic. 

Background of the Case: Montelongo et al. v. Valley Harvest LLC et al

The sisters claim they voiced their concerns to a company executive during their short time on working on the farm. According to court documents, Rachel Montelongo needed to leave work one day citing mental health reasons, and her two sisters accompanied her. One day later, the three women were fired. Based on the sisters’ claims that the complaints they made to the Nug Farms executive concerned violations of health and safety laws, minimum wage laws, family rights protections, and disability accommodations, responding by firing the workers who complained violates employment law. 

The Montelongo Sisters Work History at Nug Farms: 

Valley Harvest LLC, farm labor contractor, hired the Montelongo sisters, and they started work at Nug Farms in June 2020. During their time employed on the cannabis farm, the sisters raised concerns to a company executive about the lack of compensation for time spent waiting in line for mandatory temperature checks before shifts started, and a lack of social distancing in the workplace. According to the complaint, dozens of people were required to work in cramped conditions at Nug Farms. The plaintiffs also allege that they were not provided with appropriate personal protective equipment when instructed to directly handle bleach on the job. According to the complaint, later that month Rachel Montelongo left work to obtain treatment for her postpartum depression. Her sisters left work with her. The next day, human resources called to advise one of the sisters that all three of the Montelongo sisters were fired. The company claimed that Andrea and Rachel were fired for working too slowly and tardiness. The company claimed Alejandra was fired for overwatering certain plants. 

Additional Claims Made by the Plaintiffs in Montelongo et al. v. Valley Harvest LLC et al.

In the lawsuit, the Plaintiffs also brought employment discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, multiple retaliation claims, as well as Califonia labor law violations. The Plaintiffs seek damages to compensate lost wages (both back pay and front pay), and additional lost benefits. 

If you have questions regarding employment law and how it protects California employees from workplace retaliation, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

California Supreme Court Rules Independent Worker Test Ruling Retroactive

On January 14, 2021, the California Supreme Court ruled the ABC test retroactive. The test is used to determine worker classification (independent contractor or employee) under the AB 5 law. The ABC test was originally clarified in the 2018 Dynamex ruling. 

Clarification of the ABC Test in the 2018 Dynamex Ruling: 

In 2018, the ABC test (under AB 5) was clarified. To be classified as an independent contractor, workers must fulfill three standards: 

• free from the hiring entity’s control and direction of their work performance

• complete work that is not typical in the business

• have an independently established job done under the work done for the business

Workers who do not meet all three of the above standards (A, B, and C) should be classified as employees, making them eligible for benefits and certain protections under employment law not available to independent contractors. 

The ABC Test Received a Blow from Proposition 22: 

In 2020, the ABC test came under fire. First, AB 5 was weakened when many businesses covered under the law qualified as “exempt.” The second blow came in November 2020 when California voters passed Proposition 22 leaving all rideshare companies exempt from AB 5. Since the proposition passed (in a landslide), many groups have actively been attempting to overturn the proposition in court. 

The Controversy Over the ABC Test Continued in the California Supreme Court: 

Despite worker classification being an undeniably major issue, the controversy over the ABC test continued on to the California Supreme Court. Jan-Pro Franchising International workers brought their case to the California Supreme Court, where the court found in the workers’ favor despite the weakening of AB 5 following the passage of Proposition 22. Workers can continue filing suit against companies in violation of the ABC Test retroactively through 2018. Companies remain liable for any AB 5 violations from 2018 through the present. Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye argued that there was no compelling justification to deny workers the benefit set forth by the Dynamex case. 

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law protects you against labor law violations, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services: One of 2021’s Key California Employment Law Cases

California courts didn’t see a lot of activity in 2020, but that seems to be changing in 2021. The California Supreme Court has several pending cases that could make waves throughout the state, including Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services. 

Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services: Scheduled to Appear before California Supreme Court in 2021

Case Info: Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, S258966. (B256232; 40

Cal.App.5th 444; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC372146). 

In 2021, Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services is scheduled to appear before the California Supreme Court. The cases present two different issues. Does the violation of Labor Code 226.7 give rise to employment law claims under Labor Code sections 203 and 226 if the employer doesn’t include premium wages in the employee’s wage statements, but the wage statement does include the wages the employee earned for meal breaks? What prejudgment interest rate applies to unpaid premium wages owed due to Section 226.7? 

The Plaintiff, Naranjo, Claims Spectrum Security Services Violated California Labor Law: 

In Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, a class of security guards allege meal break violations and seek premium wages, as well as penalties for waiting times, and inaccurate wage statements, as well as attorney’s fees. When the Court of Appeals considered the case, they found that unpaid premium wages for meal periods violations do not entitle employees to penalties for inaccurate pay stubs or waiting time.

What Question Does the California Supreme Court Need to Decide? 

When the case appears before the California Supreme Court in 2021, the court will be expected to resolve a long-standing debate on recoverability of waiting time penalties for meal break and rest period violations. 

The California Supreme Court’s Decision on Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services: 

If the California Supreme Court disagrees with the findings of the lower courts, potential penalties for California meal break and rest period violations would increase since violations could be compounded by any alleged pay stub penalties or any waiting time penalties. 

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law protects you against labor law violations, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Key 2021 California Employment Law Case: Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC

Throughout 2020, the California courts were fairly quiet. However, there are a few significant employment law cases scheduled to appear before the California Supreme Court in 2021. 

Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC: Scheduled to Appear before California Supreme Court in 2021

Case Info: #19-31 Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC, S253677. (D071865; 29 Cal.App.5th 1968; San Diego County Superior Court; 37-2014-00012605-CU-OE-CTL.) 

In 2021, Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC will appear before the California Supreme Court. The case addresses the question of whether employers can use overtime pay practices and policies to round employees’ time to shorten or delay meal periods?

The Plaintiff, Donohue, Claims AMN Violated California Labor Law: 

According to the lawsuit, AMN Services (AMN) used a computer-based system. According to the plaintiff, employees clicked on an icon to open the program each day so they could clock in and out for the start of their shift, their meal periods, and the end of their shift. According to the suit, the employee’s on the clock time (recorded in 10 minute increments) was rounded to the nearest hundredth. The Plaintiff claims there were no predetermined meal and rest  breaks, but that there was a written AMN policy that workers were to take their meal and rest breaks as mandated under California law. The plaintiff claims that AMN’s timekeeping program had a drop-down question allowing employees to indicate why they did not record a mandatory meal period, and that if they indicated they voluntarily chose not to take their 30 minute meal period, no penalty payment was provided. 

Did AMN Violate Labor Law? 

When the trial court considered the issue presented in Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC, they found no evidence of a uniform policy to deny employee meal periods. In the original complaint, the Plaintiff did not claim that AMN’s rounding practice was a labor law violation resulting in denial of employee meal periods. On appeal, the Plaintiff argued that the rounding of employee hours should not be applied to meal period time punches. The Court of Appeals argued that the California standard based on past court decisions about rounding does apply to meal periods, so the court would only need to consider how frequently the company’s rounding policy resulted in rounding up and down, rather than the number of meal period violations assessed (or circumvented). 

The California Supreme Court’s Decision on Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC

When Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC comes before the California Supreme Court in 2021, their decision could have a significant impact on related cases throughout the state. If the court agrees with the Court of Appeals the California Supreme Court decision would lend further support to the argument that rounding policies are typically acceptable for California employers. The California Supreme Court’s decision, regardless of which argument they support, will provide additional guidance on how California employers should implement any timekeeping rounding policies (including rounding policies for employee meal periods and breaks). 

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law protects you against labor law violations, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.