Sullivan v. Oracle Corporation addresses how California law applies to nonresident employees working both in and outside California

Today, the California Supreme Court issued an Opinion following its acceptance of questions about the construction of California law from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  In Sullivan v. Oracle Corporation (June 30, 2011), the Court addressed (1) whether the Labor Code's overtime provisions apply to plaintiffs' claims for compensation for work performed in this state [with the ancillary question of whether the same claims can serve as predicates for claims under California's unfair competition law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.)], and (2) whether the plaintiffs' claims for overtime compensation under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) (29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.; see id., § 207(a)) for work performed in other states can serve as predicates for UCL claims.

The Court responded "yes" to the first question group, and "no" to the second.

On the first issue, the Court said:  "The California Labor Code does apply to overtime work performed in California for a California-based employer by out-of-state plaintiffs in the circumstances of this case, such that overtime pay is required for work in excess of eight hours per day or in excess of forty hours per week. (See Sullivan III, supra, 557 F.3d 979, 983.)"  (Slip op., at 18.)

On the related UCL question, the Court said: "Business and Professions Code section 17200 does apply to the overtime work described in question one. (See Sullivan III, supra, 557 F.3d 979, 983.)"  Slip op., at 19.)

The full answer to the last issues was:  "Business and Professions Code section 17200 does not apply to overtime work performed outside California for a California-based employer by out-of-state plaintiffs in the circumstances of this case based solely on the employer's failure to comply with the overtime provisions of the FLSA."  (Slip op., at 23.)

The Opinion was issued by a unanimous Court.

Update on 2011-06-30 17:42 by The Complex Litigator

The post title was corrected after the initial posting.

Not too late to register for Bridgeport's Mid Year Wage & Hour Litigation Conference

Bridgeport is holding its Mid Year Wage & Hour Litigation Conference on June 3, 2011, in San Diego, California, at the Westin San Diego Hotel.  I will be speaking with Julie Trotter, of Call & Jensen, about the impact of Concepcion on the employment law practice area.  View the full program agenda here.

Concepcion has no application in many employment cases

About a week ago, on behalf of Consumer Attorneys of California ("CAOC"), I filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the plaintiff in Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Company.  In Brown, after oral argument, the Court of Appeal requested supplemental briefs on the question of whether AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (April 27, 2011) precludes the Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443 defense to certain arbitration agreements.  After determining that the parties had not already addressed the issues, CAOC presented several bases for rejecting the contention that Concepcion overruled Gentry, including the fact that a bar on class actions violates the National Labor Relations Act's protection of concerted action by employees to improve their wages and working conditions.  You can view the brief viat the Spiro Moss website here.

Other attorneys at Spiro Moss contributed to the brief, including Dennis F. Moss (who conceived of the argument involving the NLRA), Gregory N. Karasik, and J. Mark Moore.  David M. Arbogast of Arbogast & Berns LLP also contributed to CAOC's brief.

Update on 2011-06-30 19:36 by The Complex Litigator

An error in the post title was corrected.

California Supreme Court activity for the week of May 16, 2011

The California Supreme Court held its (usually) weekly conference on May 18, 2011.  Notable results include:

• As has been the practice in all prior published cases on this issue, on a petition for review, review was granted, and the matter held, in Tien v. Tenet Healthcare (February 16, 2011) (affirmed the trial court's order denying class certification of meal period, rest break, and waiting time penalty claims). The opinion spent a substantial amount of time discussing the meal period compliance question under review in Brinker.

California Supreme Court activity for the week of May 9, 2011

The California Supreme Court held its (usually) weekly conference on May 11, 2011.  Notable results include:

• On a petition for review, review was granted, and the matter held, in United Parcel Service Wage And Hour Cases (February 24, 2011) (fees not available to defendant prevailing on Labor Code section 226.7 claims), covered previously on this blog here.  Review was previously granted in a case addressing this issue: Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc. (July 27, 2010).
• On a petition for review, review was denied in Price v. Starbucks Corporation (February 17, 2011).

Supreme Court activity for the week of April 25, 2011

The California Supreme Court held its (usually) weekly conference on April 27, 2011.  Notable results include:

• On a petition for review, review was denied in Arechiga v. Dolores Press, Inc. (February 7, 2011) (construing Labor Code section 515(d)), covered previously here.
• On a petition for review, review was denied in Safaie v. Jacuzzi Whirlpool Bath, Inc. (February 22, 2011) (death knell doctrine), covered previously here.
• On a petition for review, review was denied in Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (January 18, 2011) (disqualification issues), covered previously here.

Overall, a rough day in the land of class actions.

Northern District Court certifies under 23(b)(2) a class of shift workers alleging meal period violations at a Shell refinery

United States District Court Judge Claudia Wilken (Northern District of California) granted a motion for class certification in a suit alleging failure to comply with California's meal period requirements and pay an additional hour of pay for each instance of a violation.  Gardner v. Shell Oil Co., 2011 WL 1522377 (N.D.Cal. Apr 21, 2011).  The particularly interesting aspect of this case is the Court's decision to permit certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2):

"Claims for money relief may be certified as part of a Rule 23(b)(2) class, but the rule ‘does not extend to cases in which the appropriate final relief relates exclusively or predominantly to money damages.’ "  Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., 623 F.3d 743, 753 (9th Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Dukes, 603 F.3d at 615 n. 38).

Citing Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 151 F.3d 402, 412–16 (5th Cir.1998), Defendants contend that monetary relief in this case predominates because Plaintiffs seek damages for alleged unpaid wages and waiting-time penalties. However, the Ninth Circuit has expressly rejected the Allison approach to determining whether monetary relief in a given case disqualifies the class from certification under Rule 23(b)(2). In Wang, the Ninth Circuit explained, “In Dukes, we rejected as ‘deficient’ ... the Allison ‘incidental damages standard’ that permits certification of claims for monetary relief under Rule 23(b)(2) only when they are ‘incidental to requested injunctive or declaratory relief,’ because it is unduly restrictive.” 623 F.3d at 753–54. In this circuit, Rule 23(b)(2) is interpreted to require “only that claims for monetary relief not predominate over claims for injunctive relief” and certification is acceptable when the claims are on “equal footing.” Id. at 754.

Plaintiffs in the present case, like those in Wang, have a substantial claim for injunctive relief because they seek to end long-standing employment policies. Id. The claims for injunctive and monetary relief are closely related because back wages are sought for those who were deprived of lawful meal periods due to the policies Plaintiffs seek to enjoin. As a result of this close relationship, the request for monetary relief does not introduce “new and significant legal and factual issues,” nor raise particular due process or case management concerns. Id. Furthermore, courts have held that back wages are a form of relief that may be permitted in a Rule 23(b)(2) action. Dukes, 603 F.3d at 618–19 (holding that back pay in a Title VII case is fully consistent with certification of a Rule 23(b)(2) class action and noting that “every circuit to have addressed the issue has acknowledged that Rule 23(b)(2) does allow for some claims for monetary relief.”). In Dukes, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that back pay in the Title VII context generally involves relatively uncomplicated factual determinations and few individualized issues, and is an integral component of Title VII's “make whole” remedial scheme. Id. at 619. Nor are waiting-time penalties so significant or complex that they render Plaintiffs' monetary claim predominant over their request for injunctive relief. Accordingly, class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is warranted.

Slip op., at 6.  The balance of the opinion discusses predominance, and the Court concluded that common issues predominate and certified a Rule 23(b)(3) class as well.

The slip opinion on Westlaw does not identify the counsel involved in this uncommon attempt at 23(b)(2) certification in the wage & hour context, and I don't have time to track that down.  Thus, I don't know who to applaud.  If you do, given them a pat on the back.

In Mora, et al., v. Big Lots Stores, Court affirms denial of certification in manager misclassification case

I've comment previously that misclassification cases (especially in the retail and restaurant sectors) appear to be an increasingly difficult sell.  See post regarding Arenas v. El Torito Restaurants, Inc., 183 Cal. App. 4th 723 (2010).  Since then, I haven't seen anything to change my opinion that the tide has shifted from the Sav-on high water mark.  Yesterday, in Mora, et al. v. Big Lots Stores (April 18, 2011), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Seven) affirmed a trial court order denying certification of a class of Big Lots store managers alleged to have been misclassified as exempt from overtime pay and other labor code obligations.

The Court summarized the two ends of the legal spectrum defining the legal criteria applied to certification:

As the Supreme Court held in Sav-On, supra, 34 Cal.4th at page 326, the central issue in a class certification motion is whether the questions that will arise in the action are common or individual, not the plaintiffs' likelihood of success on the merits of their claims. (Accord, Ghazaryan v. Diva Limousine, Ltd. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 1524, 1531 ["trial court must evaluate whether the theory of recovery advanced by the plaintiff is likely to prove amenable to class treatment"].) The putative class representatives contend the trial court disregarded this standard, improperly focusing on the potential conflicting issues of fact that may arise on an individual basis rather than the common questions presented by their theory of recovery. To the contrary, the court employed the correct analysis and concluded the theory of recovery advanced—operational standardization imposed by Big Lots—was not supported by substantial evidence and thus not amenable to class treatment. No legal error was committed: "[A] class action will not be permitted if each member is required to 'litigate substantial and numerous factually unique questions' before a recovery may be allowed. . . . '[I]f a class action "will splinter into individual trials," common questions do not predominate and litigation of the action in the class format is inappropriate.'" (Arenas v. El Torito Restaurants, Inc. (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 723, 732 [affirming order denying certification on misclassification allegations where trial court found tasks performed by restaurant managers and time devoted to each task varied widely from restaurant to restaurant].)

Slip op., at 12.  The Court noted that the outcome was much like Arenas and Dunbar v. Albertson’s, Inc., 141 Cal. App. 4th 1422 (2006).

The outcome was driven by the standard of review.  The Court emphasized on several occasions that it couldn't second guess the trial court's decision to credit Big Lots' evidence over the plaintiffs' evidence:

In essentially rejecting the putative class representatives' evidentiary submission, the court observed that for more than half of the declarants the percentage of time estimated to have been spent on non-managerial, non-exempt duties was different from the estimates given in deposition testimony or statements to third party prospective employers.

Slip op., at 14, n. 10.  The trial court also credited the very individualized manager declarations submitted by Big Lots over the declarations from the plaintiffs.  The Court of Appeal found that that trial court did not abuse its discretion because substantial evidence supported the trial court's conclusion.  This is the anti-Sav-on.

Seymore v. Metson Marine opinion amended after rehearing

The Court of Appeal (First Appellate District, Division Three), issued its initial opinon in Seymore v. Metson Marine, Inc. on February 28, 2011).  Today, the Court issued an ameded opinion.  Seymore v. Metson Marine, Inc. (April 15, 2011).  I haven't had a chance to compare the opinions, so I'm not sure whether the opinion changed in any substantive way, or whether the Court simply addressed additional points raised during rehearing.  The opinion is four pages longer; however, the Court's reversal of the trial court remains in place.

District Court holds defendant to four corners of complaint when granting motion to remand

United States District Court Judge William Alsup (Northern District of California) granted a motion by plaintiff Pineda to remand a class action back to the California Superior Court from whence it came.  Pineda v. Bank of America, N.A., 2011 WL 1134467 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2011).  "Wait, isn't that case name very similar to a recent decision from the California Supreme Court regarding statutes of limitation in Labor Code section 203 cases?"  So right you are.  That's why this isn't a garden-variety remand order.  In this case, the defendant argued that it analyzed the complaint back in 2007 and concluded that the amount in controversy should have been calculated on the basis of a one-year statute of limitation.  But when the California Supreme Court held otherwise, Bank of America claimed that it learned for the first time that the case was removable.  Judge Alsup rejected that argument, observing that the parties agreed that the complaint alleged a four-year statute of limitation, and under that four-year statute, the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million.  The time to remove expired back in 2007, when the defendant was in possession of a complaint that, within its four corners, alleged an amount in controvery high enough to invoke CAFA jursidiction.

And, as I noted when reporting on Pineda previously, this matter is handled by Gregory Karasik at Spiro Moss.