On May 23, 2022, the California Supreme Court handed down its decision in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services. The decision discusses the penalties recoverable by employees for an employer’s alleged failure to pay meal and rest period premiums where a proper meal or rest period is not provided. The Naranjo Plaintiffs filed a putative class action lawsuit alleging that his employer failed to provide meal and rest periods or premium compensation in lieu thereof as required by California law. In addition to premium pay for meal and rest periods, Plaintiffs also brought derivative claims alleging failure to timely pay wages at termination and failure to provide accurate wage statements. Specifically, Plaintiffs argued that because meal and rest period premiums were not paid, they also were not timely paid all wages due at termination and their wage statements were invalid because they did not reflect the premiums that were not paid.Continue Reading California Supreme Court rules additional penalties may be recoverable for meal and rest period violations

Unpaid internships are a mutually beneficial staple of the American business landscape. They provide raw workers, generally students, with a glimpse into a particular industry at no cost to the company. Especially in these uncertain economic times, internships provide unemployed students with crucial real-world experience. But no good deed goes unpunished. In the past few years, several high-profile companies

Q:        What is easiest way to get rid of a wage and hour class action?  

A:        Making an offer of judgment to moot the named plaintiff’s claim by proposing to pay him or her an amount that will fully satisfy his or her entire individual claim.

This is exactly the strategy that the employer utilized and which, at first blush, the U.S. Supreme Court approved in Genesis Healthcare Corp v. Symczyk. But don’t get too excited, a quick review of Genesis establishes that its utility will likely be limited. Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Limits Use of Offers of Judgment to Avoid Class Actions

Most employers assume that if they successfully defeat a plaintiff’s motion for class certification in a wage and hour class action, the same class claims cannot be raised again in another case. On January 18, 2012, however, the California court of appeal in Bridgeford v. Pacific Health Corp, 2012 WL 130615, dashed that commonly held assumption.
Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Green Lights Repetitive Class Action Litigation