California Court: Arbitration Agreement does not Override Statutory PAGA Rights

Non-exempt hourly auto workers filed a class action lawsuit alleging violations of various wage and hour laws, and sought penalties under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). The employees had, however, executed the employer’s Employee Dispute Resolution Plan, which provides that all employment-related disputes must be submitted to mediation and arbitration. Employees waived any right they had to pursue, file, participate in, or be represented in disputes filed on a class basis or as a collective or representative action, and the agreement prohibited mediation or arbitration of disputes on a class basis or as a collective or representative action. More ›

California Court Decertifies wage, Break Claims due to lack of Commonality

Home delivery newspaper carriers brought suit against the publisher for violations of the California Labor Code, arguing that they were not paid overtime wages, the proper minimum wage, and did not receive rest breaks, among other things. Specifically, the carriers claimed that they were improperly classified as independent contractors, though they were actually more akin to employees, and thus should have received the benefits of being an employee (such as receiving overtime wages). More ›

California Court Finds Compensation Scheme does not meet Salary Basis test, Denies Exemption

The California Court of Appeals recently considered whether a compensation scheme which is based solely upon the number of hours worked, with no guaranteed minimum, may be considered a “salary” within the meaning of wage and hour laws.  More ›

Denial of Class Certification as to Alleged wage and hour Violations Affirmed by Court of Appeal

In Daily v. Sears, the Fourth Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the trial court’s granting of the defendant’s motion to preclude class certification.

Plaintiff Dailey was a former employee of Sears, who asserted wage and hour claims individually and on behalf of a proposed class of similarly situated managers and assistant managers.

Dailey argued that Sears uniformly categorized Managers and Assistant Managers as exempt from overtime and meal/rest break requirements, but nonetheless implemented policies that had the effect of requiring the proposed class members to work at least 50 hours per week, spending the majority of their time on nonexempt activities. Sears argued that determining how the class members actually spend their time requires individualized evidence and cannot be proven on a classwide basis. The trial court granted Sears’ motion. More ›

Why Employers need to keep Adequate Records

Here is a pattern that tends to repeat itself often in employment litigation. A disgruntled employee sues an employer for discrimination, harassment, or wrongful termination. A lawsuit is filed. And then, the attorney who files the suit includes wage and hour claims — i.e., the non-payment of overtime, meal and rest breaks. The employee may also include a claim based on the failure to reimburse the employee for expenses incurred in the course of his or her employment. More ›

New Data Shows that DOL is Actively Enforcing FLSA’s new Breastfeeding Break Requirement

Statistics released earlier this week by the Department of Labor show that the Department is taking seriously the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers provide employees with an opportunity for expression of breastmilk. The data — released pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request by the Wage and Hour Laws blog —– shows that over four dozen employers were investigated for alleged wrongful practices during the first two years of the requirement’s existence. Three dozen of the investigated employers were ultimately cited for violations of the law.  These statistics underscore the need for employers to be aware of and comply with the new breastfeeding-break requirement — the Department of Labor is obviously taking the rule seriously, and employers should do the same. More ›

Illinois Court: Employee Handbook Created “Agreement” to Support Employees’ wage Claim, even Where Disclaimers Prevented “Contract”

A federal district court judge in Northern Illinois has ruled that an employee handbook, while not a “contract”, may still be an “agreement” upon which employees may rely — and sue. In this particular case, the judge denied the employer’s motion to dismiss a claim under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA), finding that the handbook’s statements regarding compensation were an “agreement” upon which the employees’ could base their claim, despite the handbook’s numerous disclaimers stating that no legally enforceable promise was being made. The ruling, while narrowly applied in this case to support an IWPCA claim, could potentially raise major issues for Illinois employers that rely on such disclaimers to protect themselves against claims based on handbook provisions. More ›

Dukes’ Applicability may be Limited

A recent opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit demonstrates that the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) may have limited applicability to wage and hour class actions. More ›

DOT Releases Final rule Changing Hours-of-Service Safety Requirements

The Department of Transportation’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration announced that it has revised the hours-of-service safety requirements for commercial truck drivers. After seeking input from the public, company owners, drivers, law enforcement, and safety advocates, the final rule reduces the maximum number of hours that a truck driver may work within a week, sets requirements for taking breaks, and contains re-start provisions. More ›