A putative class action recently filed in Seattle, Washington, against a solar energy equipment company could be the first lawsuit to test the bounds of the state’s relatively new restrictions on noncompetition agreements for lower-wage employees.
On May 19, 2023, in Clark v. A&L Home Care and Training Center, LLC., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected the familiar two-step certification procedure in collective actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), instead requiring lead plaintiffs to demonstrate a “strong likelihood” that other employees they seek to represent are “similarly situated” to the original plaintiffs. In so ruling, the Sixth Circuit became just the second circuit court to expressly reject the familiar two-step certification procedure in FLSA collective actions.
On April 14, 2023, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Ellis, J.) declined to conditionally certify a collective of USA Today sports website editors, ruling that the familiar two-step Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective certification process would lead to irrelevant parties learning of and potentially joining the lawsuit. The decision in Mathews represents a growing trend against the familiar two-step approach to certification of collective actions under the FLSA.
A California appellate court recently ruled that an employee may pursue claims under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) that her former employer violated the state’s mandatory paid sick leave law. On the February 24, 2023, the California Court of Appeal Fourth Appellate District in Wood v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals addressed language in the paid sick leave law that provides that “any person or entity enforcing this article on behalf of the public as provided for under applicable state law” is entitled “only to equitable, injunctive or restitutionary relief.”
A federal judge in Illinois recently ruled that online shoppers cannot sustain claims that a virtual try-on (VTO) tool that allegedly scans facial geometry to preview the look of sunglasses on their face violates the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA or Privacy Act) because it falls into an exemption for “information captured from a patient in a health care setting.”
On March 15, 2023, in a case of first impression, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that paid time off is not part of an employee’s salary. Therefore, the employer did not compromise employees’ exempt status under the Fair Labor Standards Act when it reduced their accumulated PTO for failing to meet performance objectives.
On February 17, 2023, the Supreme Court of Illinois held claims under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (Privacy Act or BIPA) accrue on each and every scan or collection and further allowed so-called per scan damages. The ruling could open employers up to colossal and potentially devastating damages if the legislature does not amend the Privacy Act.
On February 2, 2023, the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois ruled that all claims under Section 15 of the state’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (Privacy Act or BIPA) have a five year statute of limitations. The decision partially overturns an appellate court ruling that had found claims under subsections 15(c) and 15(d) of the Privacy Act were governed by a one-year limitations period under Illinois law for defamation and privacy claims.
On December 15, 2022, the Oregon Supreme Court gave employers important clarity regarding the compensability of time spent in post-shift security screenings.
On October 12, 2022, a federal jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois concluded that a company violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (Privacy Act or BIPA) 45,600 times over six years by collecting truck drivers’ fingerprints to verify identities without the informed, written consent the Privacy Act requires.
In Johnson v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, a decision issued on September 21, 2022, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an order compelling arbitration of a plaintiff’s individual claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) and dismissing the remaining representative PAGA claims.
The COVID-19 pandemic did not slow down the pace of new California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) letters being filed with the state Labor Workforce Development Agency (LWDA), according to filing data. Instead, there was a significant increase in the filing of PAGA letters during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021.
On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court of California issued a decision in Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center, No. S261247, that could have a far-reaching impact on the relationships between staffing companies and their clients.
On June 15, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of Viking River Cruises Inc. in a case over whether it could use an arbitration agreement to force a lawsuit brought under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) on behalf of aggrieved employees into arbitration. In Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, No. 20-1573, the Supreme Court’s highly anticipated decision, the Court reasoned that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requires the enforcement of an arbitration agreement that waived an employee’s right to bring individual claims through PAGA and that once those individual claims are sent to arbitration there is no standing to bring representative claims for violations of the California Labor Code on behalf of other aggrieved employees.
On June 6, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear petitions seeking review of whether federal courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over claims of nonresident plaintiffs who join Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective actions when their claims are not connected to the defendant’s activities in the forum state.
On May 23, 2022, the Supreme Court of California held that premium pay for missed meal and rest periods constitutes “wages” under California labor law and that employers may be held liable for the failure to properly report and timely pay out such wages.
On March 23, 2022, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, issued the latest ruling on the hotly contested issue of whether a trial court is empowered to dismiss or limit representative claims for alleged violations of the California Labor Code under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) based on manageability concerns.
On February 18, 2022, a California appellate court issued the latest guidance in the continuing saga of statewide “suitable seating” litigation, cementing a significant trial victory for grocers, retailers, and other employers across California.
On February 7, 2022, a California appellate court issued the latest decision regarding the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Representative PAGA actions, which typically involve a relatively brief statute of limitations, permit California employees to collect civil penalties on behalf of the State of California for Labor Code violations committed against them and other employees.
On February 3, 2022, in McDonald v. Symphony Bronzeville Park, LLC, the Illinois Supreme Court held the exclusive remedy provisions of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act (“Compensation Act”) do not preempt employee statutory damages claims under the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act (“Privacy Act”).
On January 13, 2022, in Waters v. Day & Zimmermann NPS, Inc., the First Circuit Court of Appeals became the third federal appellate court to address the application of the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California to Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective actions. Unlike the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, the First Circuit concluded that a federal court does have personal jurisdiction over claims asserted by nonresident opt-in plaintiffs. The First Circuit’s decision thus creates a split among federal appeals courts and raises the prospect that the Supreme Court will ultimately have to resolve the issue.
On March 30, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear the matter of Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, Case No. 20-1573. The Court will answer the question, “Whether the Federal Arbitration Act requires enforcement of a bilateral arbitration agreement providing that an employee cannot raise representative claims, including under PAGA.”
With the calendar having turned to 2022, it is time to look into the crystal ball and make a few predictions for the year ahead related to the wage and hour world.
In a much-awaited decision, the Supreme Court of the United States indicated that it would consider whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts California’s rule prohibiting arbitration of Private Attorneys General (PAGA) claims under the California Labor Code. Depending upon the high court’s ultimate ruling, the case has the potential to upend wage and hour litigation in California.
Since the inception of California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), claims filed pursuant to the statute’s provisions have increased more than 1000 percent, with the state’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) receiving approximately 4,000 PAGA notices each year since 2014. This number is anticipated to grow much higher in 2022.
On July 15, 2021, in Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC, the Supreme Court of California set forth a new rule requiring that premiums for meal, rest, and recovery break violations be paid at the regular rate of pay.
On September 9, 2021, a California Court of Appeal issued its ruling in Wesson v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC, delivering a welcome victory to employers battling representative actions under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Under the 2004 law, an “aggrieved employee” is empowered to commence a PAGA representative action on behalf of all other “aggrieved employees” to seek civil penalties for alleged violations of the California Labor Code.
On August 17, 2021, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals became the first federal appellate court to expressly rule on the application of the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California to Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective actions.
California Assembly Bill (AB) 1003 would create a new type of grand theft in the state: a company’s “intentional theft of wages” of more than $950 from any individual employee, or $2,350 total from 2 or more employees, in a 12-month period. The bill requires that the theft be intentional, through fraud and while knowing that the wages are due to the employee. The bill also defines “wages” to include “wages, gratuities, benefits, or other compensation.”
On June 25, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling that provides additional guidance related to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), a federal law that regulates the collection of consumers’ credit information and access to their credit reports. In the employment context, the FCRA most frequently applies to background checks, including class actions alleging the most common background check claim—unlawful disclosure and authorization screens/forms (usually because of too much or too little information)—resulting in an informational injury.
