Labor Employment Law Blog

In Ghazaryan v. Diva Limousine, the California Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's denial of a class certification motion in a wage and hour class action. The Court of appeal ordered the trial court to certify two subclasses.

In what is a major victory for California employers, the California Court of Appeal held yesterday in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum) that employers are not obligated to ensure that employees actually take meal and rest breaks, and that companies therefore cannot be held liable for alleged meal and rest break violations unless employees are "forced to forgo" these breaks.

The First Appellate District of the Court of Appeal has followed the California Supreme Court’s recent Gentry opinion finding a class action waiver unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.  In Murphy v. Check ‘N Go Of California, Inc. (which has been certified for publication), the appellate court upheld an order denying the employer’s attempt to compel arbitration of a wage and hour case.  Relying on Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal. 4th 443, the Murphy Court concluded that (1) the court, rather than the arbitrator, is empowered to decide the unconscionability issue and (2) the class action waiver contained in the arbitration agreement is unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.

Unfortunately, the California Supreme Court recently granted a request to depublish a Court of Appeal opinion regarding class actions that was helpful to California employers.  The effect of the opinion had been to constrain courts' ability to certify class actions in certain circumstances.  Now that the opinion has been depublished, it can no longer be cited by litigants in California cases.

On February 28, 2007, the California Court of Appeal held that employees' ability to sue employers collectively under the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") cannot be assigned to labor unions.  The Court further held that UCL representative actions must meet the procedural requirements established for class action lawsuits.  In Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1756 v. Superior Court, L.A.S.C. B191879, two labor unions that represent mechanics and transit operators filed a lawsuit on behalf of their members alleging that the defendant-employers had committed meal and rest period violations, failed to pay wages, and violated the UCL.  The unions also requested injunctive relief and restitution under the UCL and PAGA.  The lawsuit was brought as a representative action under the UCL and PAGA, rather than as a class action lawsuit.