Brinker on Employment Law Breaks

On Thursday the California Supreme Court made a ruling in the much anticipated Brinker case. The case primarily involved labor law breaks at work in California.

The employees argued that the employer violated California labor laws by failing to make sure that the employees in fact took a 30 minute meal break. However, the court disagreed, ruling that all the employer is required to do under meal and rest break laws is make sure that the employees have the opportunity to take the break.

What is overtime in California

Many employees wonder, “what is overtime in California?” Under California labor laws companies are required to pay employees overtime for working more than 8 hours in a day or 40 hours in a week. Note that this is different than federal overtime laws which only require employers to pay employees additional compensation when they work more than 40 hours in a week. Under California wage & hour laws, employees are also supposed to be paid overtime when they work 7 consecutive workdays in the same workweek. 

Despite the fact that many employees wonder what is overtime in California, most employers are very familiar with the rules. In fact, companies often violate overtime laws because labor is the most expensive overhead cost for companies and cutting back on wages is the best way to alleviate some of this overhead. Even though they anticipate law suits for such practices, the lawsuits almost always settle for a fraction of what they would have otherwise been paying in actual overtime compensation.

                                                                                  

If you are wondering, “what is overtime in California” contact a California overtime lawyer. Most experienced employment lawyers work on a contingent fee basis. This simply means that that if they don’t win, you don’t pay. If they do win, they keep a percentage as payment. Furthermore, most overtime lawyers offer a free consultation. In this consultation (usually done over the phone) you have the opportunity to divulge your side of the story and see if you have a good case against your employer. There is virtually nothing to lose by simply contacting an overtime lawyer and discussing your situation for a few minutes.

So what is overtime in California? Some important things to remember are that if you are a non-exempt employee, you are entitled to overtime at one-and-a-half times your regular rate of pay for all hours worked past 8 in any workday. You are also entitled to double-time (twice your regular rate of pay) for all hours worked past 12 in a single workday. There are many other unique things that make California labor law favorable to the employee. Take the time to educate yourself and see if you possible are entitled to lost overtime wages.

Final Approval of Class Action Settlement

Notice of Entry of Order re Coordination

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Chrystal Johnson Date: Mar 15, 3:15 pm Subject: Notice of Entry of Order re Coordination To: Court Docs

-----Original Message----- From: BNB scan [mailto:linkserv@bamlawca.com] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 4:06 PM To: chrystal Subject: Scanned from MFP-07931105 03/15/2012 15:05

Scanned from MFP-07931105. Date: 03/15/2012 15:05 Pages:9 Resolution:200x200 DPI ----------------------------------------

 DOC031512.pdf 241KViewDownload

Pregnancy Disability Leave

Under Pregnancy Disability Leave (PDL) policy, there are significant protections for pregnant employees. Essentially, it is illegal to discriminate or retaliate against an employee due to pregnancy. Harassing and wrongfully terminating a pregnant employee is also illegal. If an employee becomes pregnant, it is her right to take a pregnancy disability leave. A doctor or other health care provider ultimately determines whether an employee is disabled by pregnancy.

Employers with five or more employees are required to provide pregnancy disability leave. If an employer has less than five employees, they still may need to follow public policy when it comes to PDL. In general, employers are not mandated to pay employees during PDL. Nonetheless, it is crucial for a covered employer to provide reasonable accommodations to a pregnant employee. If an employer provides other paid leaves due to disabilities, they are also required to provide paid PDL.

Generally, four months is the maximum amount of time for a pregnancy disability leave. It is important to note that the four months applies to each individual pregnancy and is not a time allotment for each year. Moreover, the four months of a PDL does not need to be taken consecutively. It may be taken sporadically and only when needed. PDL does not include time to bond with your child. It only includes time when a woman is unable to work due to pregnancy-related health conditions.

Like the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), a woman should try to provide a 30-day notice to their employer before taking PDL. It is an employee’s responsibility to make a reasonable effort to schedule medical treatment at a time that will have a minimal disruption on the company’s operation. Of course, it is sometimes impossible to anticipate and plan for PDL. Therefore, an employer cannot deny PDL based on an employee’s inability to provide advance notice of the need for the leave.

If their employer is covered, an employee is eligible for PDL at the beginning of their employment relationship. After granting PDL, employers are required to reinstate the employee to the same position after returning. They must also continue the employee’s earned benefits. If reinstating the employee to the same position would cause excessive harm to the company, then the employer is usually required to provide the employee with a comparable position.

Alternatives for Class Certification

According to Rule 23(b), there are three alternative grounds for class certification. If these alternative grounds are inapplicable, then class certification will be rejected. Rule 23(b) is meant to be applied liberally, not restrictively, because courts are usually in favor of class action certification. They have a favorable view because class action certification often produces significant public policy benefits.

Under Rule 23(b)(1), an action is eligible “if individual adjudication of the controversy would prejudice either the party opposing the class (b)(1)(A), or the class members themselves, (b)(1)(B).” Therefore, Rule 23(b)(1) allows class certification if a defendant could be faced with conflicting orders of conduct from individual suits. Class certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) is applicable if there is a situation “in which different results in separate actions would result in the opposing parties’ inability to pursue a clear course of conduct.” On the other hand, 23(b)(1)(A) certification is not simply justified when it is apparent that some plaintiffs may win and some may lose in separate lawsuits against the same defendant. Under Rule 23(b)(1)(B), class certification is obligatory when it is evident that individual claims would exhaust the limited fund and disallow succeeding plaintiffs from recovery. Therefore, “a (b)(1)(B) class action is commonly utilized to avoid an unfair preference for the early claimants at the expense of later claimants.”

According to Rule 23(b)(2), actions are “limited to those class actions seeking primarily injunctive or corresponding declaratory relief” (Barnes v. The American Tobacco Company). A (b)(2) class must be unified and homogeneous; therefore, it must be evident that the defendant has acted on grounds that are applicable and relevant to all of the class members. Furthermore, class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) is appropriate when “the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.”

Essentially, in order for there to be class certification, it must be confirmed and demonstrated that class action litigation is the best choice for the situation. Class action is considered to be superior if there are numerous class members who have small claims that are not worthy of individual adjudication. In other words, if there are multiple people who hold “negative value suits” against the same defendant, then class action is the justifiable superior method. It is important to keep in mind, however, that the combination of individual claims with unique damages can cause a class action case to be unmanageable.

The Development of Class Action Litigation

Class action is defined as “a representative suit filed on behalf of named plaintiffs for themselves and on behalf of a discernible group of people or legal entities similarly situated.” Class action is regarded as an unconventional form of litigation. This regard is due to the fact that the named plaintiffs assume the responsibilities that are not present in individual litigation because they are required to efficiently represent class members that are not present. Essentially, class action was created to be an exception to the rule that litigation must be carried out on behalf of the individual named parties only. Litigation can, therefore, be carried out through representatives on behalf of the class members that are not present.

Class action was originally initiated in the eighteenth century English equity courts. In 1938, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was enacted in the United States. These rules outlined the class action system and process. Original Rule 23 distinguished the different types of class action, which included “true”, “hybrid”, and “spurious”. “True” class action concludes the rights of all class members. “Hybrid” class action involves class members who make separate claims against the same property or fund. “Spurious” class action involves class members who make separate claims regarding common questions of fact or law. Unlike “true” class action, “hybrid” and “spurious” class action judgments do not determine the rights of absent members of the class. These three categories were eventually eliminated in 1966, when the Federal Rule 23 was amended.

In Hansberry v. Lee, the Supreme Court pointed out that the roots of class action litigation are “in bills of peace in equity which involved multiple parties.” Class action’s utilization in other frameworks became accepted as it developed throughout time. Significantly, the characterization of class action suits was drawn out in Supreme Tribe of Ben Hur v. Cauble. The characterization follows: “Where the parties interested in the suit are numerous, their rights and liabilities are so subject to change and fluctuation by death or otherwise, that it would not be possible, without great inconvenience, to make them all parties, and would oftentimes prevent the prosecution of the suit to a hearing. For convenience, therefore, and to prevent a failure of justice, a court of equity permits a portion of the parties in interest to represent the entire body, and the decree binds all of them the same as if they were before the court.” Furthermore, the components that led to the development of class action include: protecting defendants from conflicting obligations, protecting interests of class members that are absent, and providing a course of action that facilitates spreading litigation costs among numerous litigants with similar claims.