Employment Law Blog

Filter: Alonzo v. Maximus Inc.

The Fair Labor Standards Act and Class Action Suits in California

There are many public policy considerations that favor the use of class actions in the employment context in California. First, individual awards in employment cases tend to be modest so the availability of a class action claim plays an important function by permitting employees a relatively inexpensive way to resolve their disputes. Additionally, class actions allow many employees, who may not otherwise file an individual suit due to fear of retaliation, to safely have their day in court as a member of the class. Class actions also serve to inform and protect employees who, for one reason or another, may not otherwise become aware that their rights are even being violated.

Meal and rest break claims are specifically suited to class treatment. See Brinker Rest. Corp., 53 Cal.4th at 1033 (certifying a California class with meal and rest break claims).

READ MORE

July 23, 2015

#Alonzo v. Maximus Inc. #Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. #Ballaris v. Wacker Siltronic Corp. #Biggs v. Joshua Hendy Corp. #Brennan v. Elmer’s Disposal Serv. Inc. #Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Super. Ct. #C.F.R. § 778.109 #C.F.R. § 778.118 #C.F.R. § 778.209 #C.F.R. § 778.223 #C.F.R. § 778.315 #C.F.R. § 785.11 #C.F.R. § 785.13 #C.F.R. § 785.18 #C.F.R. § 785.19(a) #C.F.R. §778.110(b) #C.F.R. §778.211 #Dietrick v. Securitas Sec. Servs. USA Inc. #Donovan v. Crisostomo #Fair Labor Standards Act #FLSA #Gen. Tel. Co. of S.W. v. Falcon #Gilb v. Chiang #Haro v. City of Los Angeles #Hoffman-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling #Isuzu Motors Ltd. v. Consumers Union of U.S. Inc. #Labor Code § 1194(a) #Labor Code § 221 #Labor Code § 226.7 #Labor Code § 2802 #Labor Code § 510(a) #Labor Code §§ 201-203 #Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 #Leuthold v. Destination America Inc. #Lewis v. Wells Fargo & Co #McLaughlin v. Ho Fat Seto #Mills v. Joshua Hendy Corp. #Rother v. Lupenko #Rubin v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. #U.S.C. § 203 #U.S.C. § 207(a)(1) #U.S.C. § 216 #U.S.C. § 216(b) #U.S.C. § 255(a) #U.S.C. § 260 #U.S.C. §§ 206 207(a)(1) #U.S.C. 211(c) #White v. Davis

California Wage and Hour Laws for Large Corporations

“Meal and rest periods have long been viewed as part of the remedial worker protection framework.” Murphy, infra. California law requires employers to authorize and permit rest breaks for every four hours of work or major fraction thereof. The California Supreme Court in Brinker, infra, explained that the “major fraction thereof” requirement means one break for a shift greater than 3.5 but less than 6 (“3.5>6”) hours long, two breaks for a shift greater than 6 but less than 8 (“6>8”) hours long, and three breaks for a shift greater than 10 but less than 12 (“10>12”) hours long.

California Labor Code section 226.7 prohibits employers from requiring its employees to work during any rest period mandated by the Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Orders. “[I]n light of the remedial nature of the legislative enactments authorizing the regulation of wages, hours and working conditions for the protection and benefit of employees, the statutory provisions are to be liberally construed with an eye to promoting such protection.” Industrial Welfare Com. v. Superior Court, 27 Cal.3d 690, 702 (1980). “[T]he IWC’s wage orders are entitled to ‘extraordinary deference, both in upholding their validity and in enforcing their specific terms.’” Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004, 1027 (2012) (quoting Martinez v. Combs, 49 Cal.4th 35, 61 (2010)). Rest break requirements “have long been viewed as part of the remedial worker protection framework.” Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., 40 Cal.4th 1094, 1105 (2007).

READ MORE

March 4, 2013

#Alonzo v. Maximus Inc. #Alvarez v. Hill #Amaral v. Cintas Corp. No. 2 #Arias v. Superior Court #Armenta v. Osmose Inc. #Avilez v. Pinkerton Government Services #Barnhill v. Robert Saunders & Co. #Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Super. Ct. #Bufil v. Dollar Financial Group Inc. #Caliber Bodyworks Inc. v. Superior Court #Cicairos v. Summit Logistics Inc. #Dilts v. Penske Logistics LLC #Donovan v. New Floridian Hotel Inc. #Gardner v. Shell Oil Co. #Guifu Li v. A Perfect Day Franchise Inc. #Hale v. Morgan #Heritage Residential Care Inc. v. DLSE #Herman v. Hector I. Nieves Transport Inc. #Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. v. Superior Court #Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University #Huene v. U.S. Dept. of the Treasury #Industrial Welfare Com. v. Superior Court #Jaimez v. DAIOHS USA Inc. #Labor Code § 201(a) #Labor Code § 203(a) #Labor Code § 203(b) #Labor Code § 204 #Labor Code § 210 #Labor Code § 226.3 #Labor Code § 226.7 #Labor Code § 226(a) #Labor Code § 226(e)(2) #Labor Code § 2698 #Labor Code § 2699(e)(2) #Labor Code § 2699(f) #Labor Code § 558 #Martinez v. Combs #Mayle v. Felix #Morton v. Valley Farm Transp. Inc. #Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions Inc. #Ortega v. J.B. Hunt Transport Inc. #PAGA #Plaisted v. Dress Barn Inc. #Price v. Starbucks Corp. #Reinhardt v. Gemini Motor Transport #Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669 v. G & G Fire Sprinklers Inc. #Starving Students Inc. v. Department Of Industrial Relations #Thiebes v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. #Thurman v. Bayshore Transit Management Inc. #Willner v. Manpower Inc.