Procedural Posture

 

Procedural Posture

Plaintiff mine workers appealed a judgment of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, California, which dismissed their complaint alleging that defendant employer failed to allow a second meal break for the 12-hour shifts they were working in violation of Lab. Code, §§ 226.7 & 512.

Overview

A commercial litigation attorney deals with non-criminal areas of legal dispute and will help you defending lawsuits or filing legal claims. Although a wage order promulgated by the California Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) exempted employees from the second meal break provision who were covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), the court concluded that the IWC exceeded its authority in adopting Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11160, subd. 10(E), of the wage order and that the exemption was invalid. The IWC's powers did not extend to the creation of additional exemptions from the meal period requirement beyond those provided by the legislature. The CBA did not require that the employees arbitrate their claims regarding the second meal break requirement. With a single exception, the court declined to take a position regarding the employer's potential liability for violations of Lab. Code, § 512, committed before the issuance of its opinion and ruled that the matter had to be initially addressed in the trial court. Nevertheless, the claim based on Lab. Code, § 226.7, presented an issue of law that was fully developed. There was no basis for application of § 226.7. Although the exemption was invalid, it was still part of the wage order. Thus, the employer did not violate the wage order.

Outcome

The judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded.

 

Overview

HOLDINGS: [1]-In a wage and hour class suit alleging that an employer failed to implement compliant meal and rest period policies, a settlement agreement that provided a fund for employees' claims, payment of attorneys' fees, actual litigation costs, state government penalties, and an incentive award to the named class plaintiff was approved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 because it was fair, adequate, and reasonable as there was no showing of collusion as the settlement was the result of arms' length negotiations entered into after motion practice and discovery, the employees might not have prevailed on all of claims, litigation would have been time-consuming and costly, and very few class members challenged the settlement; [2]-The attorneys' fees requested were reasonable, particularly when calculated using a percentage of the common fund amount as cross-checked by the lodestar amount.

Outcome

Motions granted in part.