Key California Employment Regulation Case Research: February 2023 | Payne & Fears

Helix Vitality Options Group Inc. v. Hewitt, 143 Superior Courtroom 677 (2023)

Abstract

Worker was eligible for additional time pay below the Honest Labor Requirements Act (“FLSA”) as a result of his “daily-rate” plan didn’t fulfill the FLSA’s wage foundation take a look at.

See our in-depth evaluation right here.

Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta, No. 20-15291, 2023 WL 2013326 (ninth Cir. Feb. 14, 2023)

Abstract

California Meeting Invoice 51 (“AB 51”), a California regulation that prohibits employers from requiring workers to signal arbitration agreements as a situation of employment, is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) and unenforceable.

See our in-depth evaluation of Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta right here.

Galarsa v. Dolgen California LLC, No. F082404, 2023 WL 2212196 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2023)

Abstract

A plaintiff who has been ordered to arbitrate her particular person claims for civil penalties pursuant to PAGA can preserve a court docket motion to pursue non-individual PAGA claims looking for civil penalties for alleged Labor Code violations suffered by different workers.

See our in-depth evaluation right here and additional commentary right here.

Hill v. Xerox Enterprise Companies LLC, 59 F.4th 457 (ninth Cir. 2023)

Abstract

Employer waived proper to compel arbitration of particular person claims and implement class waiver the place employer engaged in discovery, opposed a movement for sophistication certification on the deserves, filed movement for partial abstract judgment, pursued an interlocutory attraction, and took part in a number of standing conferences throughout litigation.

Information

Plaintiff Tiffany Hill filed a category motion lawsuit in opposition to Defendant Xerox Enterprise Companies LLC for underpaying wages below the Washington Minimal Wage Act and the Washington Shopper Safety Act. Defendant moved for partial abstract judgment on a discrete subject, which the district court docket denied. The case went to the Courtroom of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on an interlocutory attraction and was stayed whereas the court docket of appeals licensed a query to the Washington Supreme Courtroom. Whereas the case was stayed, the a number of remaining points within the lawsuit have been resolved. When the keep was lifted, the events argued in regards to the scope of the potential class, at which period Defendant raised the notion of arbitration in earnest as a result of it allegedly wanted the scope of the potential class to find out which particular person workers signed dispute decision plans and could be included within the class. In opposing arbitration, Plaintiff argued that Defendant waived its proper to arbitrate, given the state of litigation and Defendant’s dispositive movement apply. The district court docket agreed and denied the movement. Defendant appealed, arguing that looking for arbitration any sooner, with out understanding the scope of the category, would have been futile.

Courtroom’s Choice

The Courtroom of Enchantment for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that an employer acts inconsistently with the proper to compel arbitration the place it continues by way of litigation, submitting a movement for abstract judgment and serving discovery (in an try to resolve authorized points), earlier than making an attempt to compel arbitration. The court docket defined that preserving a protection of arbitration in a solution shouldn’t be sufficient to beat waiver, and the doctrine of futility doesn’t shield an employer ready on class certification earlier than looking for arbitration.

Sensible Implications

This case is a vital reminder to employers to examine early and sometimes for arbitration agreements which may be relevant in a pending lawsuit, and to be diligent in shifting to compel arbitration.

Rocha v. U-Haul Co. of California 88 Cal. App. fifth 65 (2023)

Abstract

Plaintiffs lack standing to keep up a PAGA declare when an arbitration award finds that there was no underlying Labor Code violations.

Information

Plaintiffs Thomas and Jimmy Rocha sought damages for claims below the California Honest Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) and Labor Code part 1102.5 in opposition to their former employer, U-Haul, and former supervisor, Don Sandusky (“Defendants”). Defendants moved to compel the matter to arbitration. A day after Defendants moved to compel arbitration, Plaintiffs sought go away, on an ex parte foundation, to amend their criticism to incorporate Non-public Attorneys Normal Act (“PAGA”)-related claims. The superior court docket granted the movement to compel arbitration and denied the ex parte software to amend the criticism, discovering that Plaintiffs have been required to make such a request on a repeatedly observed movement. Defendants in the end prevailed in arbitration. The arbitrator discovered that no violations of the Labor Code had occurred as to U-Haul, however made no comparable discovering as to Sandusky. Plaintiffs unsuccessfully moved to vacate the award. Plaintiffs then appealed the superior court docket’s orders confirming the arbitration award, compelling the matter to arbitration, and denying Plaintiffs’ request for go away to amend their criticism to incorporate PAGA-related claims.

Courtroom’s Choice

The California Courtroom of Enchantment reversed the order denying go away to amend as to Sandusky, reversed the judgment as to Sandusky, and affirmed in all different respects. The court docket of attraction held that there isn’t a standing to deliver a PAGA motion when an arbitration award finds that there was no underlying violation of the Labor Code. The court docket famous that the arbitral award had discovered that there was no Labor Code violation as to Defendant U-Haul, which precluded a PAGA motion in opposition to the employer, however made no such comparable willpower as to Sandusky. Accordingly, judgment was reversed as to Sandusky. Notably, the court docket expressly disagreed with a previous court docket of attraction choice, Gavriiloglou v. Prime Healthcare Administration Inc., 83 Cal. App. fifth 595 (2022), which held that an arbitration award in opposition to an worker was not entitled to preclusive impact within the worker’s later PAGA motion.

Sensible Implications

The PAGA panorama in California has been altering dramatically since the USA Supreme Courtroom’s choice in Viking River Cruises. Now that particular person PAGA claims might be compelled to arbitration, a slew of associated questions have arisen, together with concerning the preclusive impact of arbitration choices on the non-individual PAGA claims that stay pending in court docket. With the cut up within the Courtroom of Enchantment now between Gavriiloglou and Rocha, there’s a good probability that the California Supreme Courtroom will step in to supply readability on this essential topic.