Wage & Hour Defense Blog : Wage & Hour Lawyer & Attorney : Epstein Becker Green Law Firm : DOL Enforcement, FLSA Coverage

By Kara Maciel and Casey Cosentino

The restaurant and hospitality industries are no strangers to the tidal wave of wage and hour class action lawsuits. Restaurants and hotel operators located in states with employee-friendly laws like Massachusetts, New York, and California, are particularly vulnerable. This vulnerability was recently confirmed on April 30, 2012, when Texas Roadhouse, Inc. agreed to pay $5 million to settle a putative class action suit filed by wait staff employees from nine restaurants in Massachusetts.

In Crenshaw, et. al, v. Texas Roadhouse, Inc. (No. 11-10549-JLT), the plaintiffs alleged that Texas Roadhouse violated Massachusetts Tips Law by retaining and distributing proceeds from their gratuities to managers and other non-wait staff employees, including hosts/hostesses. Additionally, because the plaintiffs did not receive all of their gratuities, they asserted that Texas Roadhouse improperly claimed the tip credit against the minimum wage in violation of Massachusetts Minimum Wage Law. As such, Texas Roadhouse allegedly paid the plaintiffs less than minimum wage. The plaintiffs, therefore, argued that they were entitled to full minimum wage for all hours worked.

Under Massachusetts law, employees who receive at least $20 per month in gratuities may be paid $2.63 per hour (“tip credit”), provided that the gratuities and hourly pay rate when added together are equal to or greater than the state minimum wage of $8.00. If the employee does not receive the equivalent of the minimum hourly wage with his or her tips, the restaurant or hotel must pay the difference. Although restaurants and hotel operators are prohibited from retaining employees’ gratuities, they may distribute properly pooled tips. Accordingly, when the tip credit is claimed to satisfy the minimum wage, only employees who customarily and regularly receive tips are eligible to participate in the tip pool. These employees include wait staff employees (e.g., banquet servers and bussers); service employees (e.g. baggage handlers and bellhops); and bartenders. Conversely, employees not eligible for tip pool arrangements include kitchen staff, cooks, chefs, dishwashers, and janitors. Also, under no circumstances are employers, owners, managers, or supervisors permitted to share in the tip pool.  

The Texas Roadhouse settlement illustrates the importance of adhering to state and federal minimum wage laws. A violation of a tip pool arrangement can lead to high exposure for restaurants and hotels, not only with respect to money wrongfully withheld from employees, but also with potential tip credit violations. With the flood of class action suits, restaurants and hotel operators must continue to make compliance with wage and hour laws a top priority. As a best practice, restaurants and hotel operators should conduct regular self-audits of their wage and hour practices, in consultation with legal counsel. Identifying and correcting wage and hour mishaps before plaintiffs collectively seek action is the first defense to preventing class action suits and reducing legal liability.

Spring Tune-Up:  Gas Stations Should Review Their Pay Policies And Recording Practices To Steer Clear Of The DOL's Recent Enforcement Initiative Targeting Them

By:  Douglas Weiner and Meg Thering

The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) has announced that it has been finding “patterns of violative pay practices” in gas stations throughout New York, Long Island, and New Jersey. Last year, in New Jersey alone, the Department of Labor, through its multi-year enforcement initiative, conducted 74 investigations of gas stations and ordered employers to pay over $1 million in back pay to employees.

As many commuters know, long daily and weekly hours are the norm for many employees in the gas station industry. Enhanced enforcement activity is now focused on this industry. Specifically, DOL wage and hour investigators are looking for off-the-clock work, flat salaries paid for all hours without variation for overtime, minimum wage and overtime violations. 

STEER CLEAR OF THE DOL’S ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVE BY KEEPING GOOD RECORDS

 Maintaining a strong set of payroll records is the primary defense to a wage challenge. Keeping accurate records of all hours worked protects employers from claims by employees who may later exaggerate and over-generalize the number of hours they have actually worked. Also, record-keeping violations fuel investigators’ suspicions of wage violations. Failure to keep the payroll records required by law (29 C.F.R. § 516; NYLL § 195; N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.6) greatly increases an employer’s risk of exposure to wage claims. Robust payroll records showing each employee’s daily arrival and departure times, the start and stop times of rest periods and meal periods, and the amounts employees are paid in straight and overtime pay, provide the evidence an employer needs to prove proper pay for the daily and weekly hours actually worked. Of course, employers should also record the actual payments made. Records demonstrating minimum wage and overtime compliance are the best defense to a wage and hour challenge, whether questions arise from a government audit or plaintiffs’ class action lawsuit. 

DON’T GET STUCK IN TRAFFIC: MAKE SURE YOU HAVE GOOD UNDERLYING PAY PRACTICES, AS WELL AS PROPER RECORD-KEEPING PRACTICES

Good record-keeping will get you nowhere if your underlying pay practices do not comply with the law. An “industry norm” defense may not suffice. Depending upon the circumstances, employers may consider a variety of strategies to ensure compliance with federal and state wage and hour laws.  A salary method of compensating non-exempt employees may be designed to comply with the overtime requirements of state and federal law. Using the principles of the “fluctuating work week,” an employer may use the payment of half-time overtime advantageously. 

Employers should also ensure that improper deductions are not taken from wages, employees are given requisite notice of their pay, and workers are properly classified as employees versus independent contractors and as non-exempt versus exempt employees.

In light of this new enforcement initiative, we recommend all gas station employers conduct a “spring tune-up” review of their pay practices and records. Better you conduct this tune-up now rather than having to deal with picking up the pieces of a crash after the DOL or a plaintiff’s attorney comes in and finds violations.

By Michael Kun

Yesterday, only weeks after its long-awaited Brinker v. Superior Court decision, the California Supreme Court issued another important ruling on California meal and rest period laws. 

In Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that neither party may recover attorney’s fees on claims involving meal and rest periods.  The Court analyzed the legislative history of the meal and rest period provisions and concluded, “We believe the most plausible inference to be drawn from history is that the Legislature intended [meal and rest period] claims to be governed by the default American rule that each side must cover its own attorney’s fees.” 

Although plaintiffs’ counsel throughout the state have tried to put a happy face on this decision, claiming a victory because plaintiffs cannot be made to pay an employer’s attorney’s fees should the employer prevail, the decision is plainly a victory for employers.  Rarely, if ever, are plaintiffs made to pay an employer’s attorney’s fees in a meal and rest period case, while employers are routinely asked to do as part of the resolution of such cases.  And as employers who have faced meal and rest period class actions know, the resolution of those cases has often turned on disputes over plaintiffs’ counsel’s fees, where it has not been unusual for plaintiffs’ counsel to seek fees that dwarf the recovery they seek for the employees themselves. 

While Kirby will have a great impact on meal and rest period cases, it is unlikely to spell the end of those cases.  Instead, employers can expect that plaintiffs’ counsel will include claims for which attorney’s fees can be recovered, such as claims for unpaid overtime or claims under the Private Attorneys General Act, and that they will later contend that most of their time was devoted to those claims, not the meal and rest period claims.

Additionally, employers should be aware that the Supreme Court all but invited the state legislature to add an attorney’s fees provision for meal and rest period violations: “it is up to the Legislature to decide whether [minimum wage law’s] one-way fee-shifting provision should be broadened to include [meal and rest period] actions.”

By Adam Abrahms

Last year, California passed the Wage Theft Prevention Act (AB 469) which amended several existing Labor Code sections and added several new ones. Most notably, in addition to criminalizing certain wages payment violations, the statute created a new mandate for California employers to provide each new employee a written notice upon hire containing individual information, including their regular rate of pay, overtime rates, and regular pay day. The law also required the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) to prepare a template of the notice that employers could use for compliance. 

Although the new law had an effective date of January 1, 2012, the DLSE did not provide its first template with guidance until the final week of December. Its initial attempt seemed to raise more questions than provide answers, and the DLSE issued a revision within weeks. Even its second attempt, however, raised serious concerns that the notice went far beyond the requirements of the law and invited the potential for another round of class action lawsuits and employers.

Reacting to concerns raised by and on behalf of employers, the DLSE has announced revisions to both the template and the FAQ Guidance. The revisions are designed to address concerns that the prior template language could be read as evidencing an employment contract with an employee and diminishing the presumption of at-will employment. The revisions also addressed concerns related to what and how “rates of pay” must be listed, especially where employees may have multiple rates or a fluctuating regular rate of pay. Finally, the FAQs provide new guidance on the respective obligations of joint-employment situations including those involving staffing agencies.

The updated FAQ (link here) provides underlined and other notations indicating where and how the FAQ had been updated. The most helpful changes are contained in the addition of questions 16-30 at the end of the FAQ.

The new template (link here) is simplified and has removed or amended several (though not all) areas of concern. Importantly, the FAQs make it clear that employers can choose to use their own form or a modified form as long as the information from the template is included. 

Although the DLSE’s revisions are helpful and a step in the right direction, employers still must be cautious in ensuring compliance with the Wage Theft Prevention Act. The requirements of this law still contain many pitfalls that could find a well meaning employer faced with an individual lawsuit or class action despite its best efforts at compliance. We recommend employers carefully review their processes to ensure they are both in compliance with the law and have established forms and procedures designed to limit their exposure and meet their individual business needs.

By:  Michael Kun

This morning, the California Supreme Court has just issued its long-awaited decision in the Brinker case regarding meal and period requirements.   It is largely, but not entirely, a victory for employers.  A copy of the decision is here.

A few highlights of the decision:

On rest periods, the Court confirmed the certification of a rest period class because Brinker’s written policy arguably did not comply with the law as to the second rest period in a day.  In so doing, it clarified when employees are entitled to rest periods:

·         Employees are entitled to 10 minutes’ rest for shifts from three and one-half to six hours in length, 20 minutes for shifts of more than six hours up to 10 hours, 30 minutes for shifts of more than 10 hours up to 14 hours, and so on. (page 20)

On meal periods, the Court confirmed that meal periods need not be “ensured,” and that employers have no obligation to “police” them:

·         An employer’s duty with respect to meal breaks under both section 512, subdivision (a) and Wage Order No. 5 is an obligation to provide a meal period to its employees. The employer satisfies this obligation if it relieves its employees of all duty, relinquishes control over their activities and permits them a reasonable opportunity to take an uninterrupted 30-minute break, and does not impede or discourage them from doing so….. On the other hand, the employer is not obligated to police meal breaks and ensure no work thereafter is performed. Bona fide relief from duty and the relinquishing of control satisfies the employer’s obligations, and work by a relieved employee during a meal break does not thereby place the employer in violation of its obligations and create liability for premium pay under Wage Order No. 5, subdivision 11(B) and Labor Code section 226.7, subdivision (b). (page 36)

The Court also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument in favor of “rolling” meal periods (i.e., the argument that an employee who takes an early meal period is entitled to another meal period within the next five hours, even if he or she works less than 10 hours):

·         We conclude that, absent waiver, section 512 requires a first meal period no later than the end of an employee’s fifth hour of work, and a second meal period no later than the end of an employee’s 10th hour of work. (page 37)

Unfortunately, confirming that meal period claims will continue to be litigated in California for years to come, the Court added the following caveat:

·         What will suffice may vary from industry to industry, and we cannot in the context of this class certification proceeding delineate the full range of approaches that in each instance might be sufficient to satisfy the law.   (page 36)

A more comprehensive analysis of the decision and its impact upon California employers – and the meal and rest period class actions that have besieged California employers – will be forthcoming. 

By: Douglas Weiner and Meg Thering

In one of the many “wrinkles” in Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) litigation, settlements of wage and hour disputes between an employer and its employees are only enforceable if supervised by the U.S. Department of Labor or approved by a court. Courts will approve settlements if they are “fair”; however, as demonstrated in a recent decision arising out of New Jersey - Brumley v. Camin Cargo Control - courts may need to be reminded that employers also have rights and legitimate interests. The Brumley Court took what was a bargained-for exchange between both parties and turned it into what could only be considered a one-sided deal, good only for the plaintiffs. 

After litigating and negotiating alleged overtime violations with 112 opt-in plaintiffs over a four year period, Camin Cargo Control, Inc. ultimately offered to pay $3.9 million in exchange for the release of all wage claims and a confidentiality provision. Plaintiffs then filed an unopposed motion to approve these terms of settlement.  Unfortunately for Camin Cargo Control, Inc., the Court granted Plaintiffs their full benefit of the bargain – including $1.3 million in costs and attorneys’ fees – but in the name of “fairness” denied the portion of the motion containing the confidentiality provision and release of claims.

In Brumley,the Honorable Jose Linares, citing Brooklyn Sav. Bank v. O’Neil, a U.S. Supreme Court case from 1945 and Dees v. Hyradry, Inc., a 2010 casefrom the Middle District of Florida, refused to approve the parties’ agreement as submitted because he found that the confidentiality provisions ran afoul of “the ‘public – private’ rights granted by the FLSA and thwart[ed] Congress’s intent to ensure widespread compliance with the statute.” Additionally, citing Dees, he stated: “[i]n practice, leaving an FLSA settlement to wholly private resolution conduces inevitably to mischief.” He also deemed the release unfair because he interpreted it as a release of both prior and prospective claims.

In light of this opinion, employers should double check the language of release provisions in FLSA settlement agreements to make sure that they unambiguously release all claims prior to the date of the agreement (and no claims after the date of the agreement). 

Employers should also keep in mind that courts are becoming increasingly hostile to confidentiality provisions in FLSA settlements. Thus, employers may no longer assume that their confidentiality provisions will be approved. 

We will keep an eye on this decision and report if it is appealed or distinguished by courts in other jurisdictions.

By Matthew Sorensen

Wage garnishment can pose a number of potential problems for hospitality businesses. This is particularly true where the employee whose pay is subject to garnishment receives tips. 

Garnishment is a legal procedure in which an employee’s earnings must be withheld by an employer for the payment of a debt under a court order. When faced with a garnishment order involving a tipped employee, the employer must determine whether all or part of the employee’s tips must be included in the amounts withheld under the garnishment order. This question turns on whether or not the employee’s tips may be characterized as “earnings” under the applicable garnishment statute. A mistake by the employer could lead to significant liability. Many state and federal laws concerning garnishment contain provisions that allow for direct employer liability for failing to timely respond to or follow a garnishment order. On the other hand, federal and state wage and hour rules can create liability for wrongfully withholding an employee’s tips. A recent Tennessee Appellate court ruling provides some additional guidance in this area that will likely have broader application to hospitality businesses around the country. 

In Erlanger Medical Center v. Strong, the Tennessee Court of Appeals relied on guidance found in the U.S. Department of Labor’s Field Operations Manual and a Wage and Hour Opinion Letter to hold that tips are not “earnings” that may be garnished. Specifically, the Court noted that “garnishment is inherently a procedural device designed to reach and sequester earnings held by the garnishee (usually the employer).” The Court went on to note that tips paid to an employee by a customer (including those paid by means of a credit card) are not “earnings” that may be garnished because they do not pass to the employer (the garnishee). Rather, tips are direct payments from customers to employees and are the property of the tipped employee. 

This ruling is consistent with a recent decision by the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court which held that tips are not “earnings” subject to garnishment under New Jersey law. It is also bolstered by the U.S. Department of Labor’s 2011 amendments to its rules defining the general characteristics of “tips.” In those revised rules, the Department of Labor has stated that the Fair Labor Standards Act prohibits employers from using an employee’s tips for any reasons other than as a credit against the minimum wage or as part of a valid tip pool.

Although each state’s garnishment laws are different, many states have defined “earnings” that may be subject to garnishment in a manner that is similar to the Tennessee statute at issue in Erlanger Medical Center v. Strong. As such, the Tennessee Court of Appeals’ decision and the U.S. Department of Labor guidance documents on which it relied may serve as strong persuasive authority in other jurisdictions. Nevertheless, hospitality employers should remain mindful that some states, including Colorado, expressly include tips in their definitions of “earnings” subject to garnishment. 

When served with a garnishment order, hospitality employers should act promptly to determine their obligations under both state and federal law, particularly where the order involves a tipped employee. Garnishment orders often set out specific timelines for the employer to respond and comply. Failure to appropriately or timely respond to the order can put the employer on the hook for its employee’s debt. To avoid such undesirable consequences and ensure that no improper deductions or withholdings are made from an employee’s tips under applicable wage and hour laws, it is best practice to consult with an attorney immediately upon receipt of a garnishment order.

Wage and hour investigations and class action lawsuits continue to be a potentially serious problem for many employers, resulting in an abundance of new cases filed and many large settlements procured.  In addition, in September 2011, under the guidance of the Obama Administration, the Department of Labor and IRS announced an effort to coordinate with each other to address misclassification of employees as independent contractors, which is resulting in additional investigations, fines, and/or legal liability levied on an employer.

Click here to register for this complimentary webinar.

Thursday, April 12, 2012
9:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m. CDT - Program and Q&A Session  

By:  Amy Traub and Desiree Busching

Like the fashions in the magazines on which they work and the blockbuster movies for which they assist in production, unpaid interns are becoming one of the newest, hottest trends— the new “it” in class action litigation. As we previously advised, there has been an increased focus on unpaid interns in the legal arena, as evidenced by complaints filed by former unpaid interns in September 2011 against Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. and in February 2012 against Hearst Corporation. In those lawsuits, unpaid interns working on the hit movie “Black Swan” and at Harper’s Bazaar magazine, respectively, alleged that their high-profile employers violated federal and state wage-and-hour laws by failing to pay them for work they claim was more aptly suited for paid employees.

The newest case to hit the scene on this issue has been filed by Lucy Bickerton, a former unpaid intern of “The Charlie Rose Show” on PBS. In her March 14, 2012 complaint, Bickerton alleges that she worked for the show in 2007 for approximately 25 hours per week and that the show and its host had her performing “productive work”—work for which she claims she, and other interns like her, should have been paid.

According to a press release issued by the plaintiffs’ firm that has filed all three of these prominent unpaid intern cases, “[s]ince filing a lawsuit on behalf of unpaid Fox [Searchlight Pictures, Inc.] interns late last year, our office has received numerous calls from other current and former interns who were not paid for the productive work they performed. This [Bickerton] lawsuit should send a clear message to employers that the practice of classifying employees as ‘interns’ to avoid paying wages runs afoul of federal and state wage and hour laws.”

The clear message received is that this firm is on the offensive, and others will undoubtedly soon follow suit. For employers who have checked their unpaid internship programs to ensure that they are in compliance with the tests utilized by both federal and state agencies and courts in analyzing whether individuals qualify as “interns,” it is time to double-check. With the attention this issue is seeing in the media and before the courts, it is clear that if misclassified unpaid interns are not paid now, employers may just be paying later.

Wage Hour laws and regulations are complex, non-intuitive, and constantly changing.  Mistakes in wage and salary administration have led to class actions resulting in six and seven figure recoveries against the most sophisticated employers - banks and major industrial giants as well as smaller employers without in-house legal and high level Human Resources officials.  Peter M. Panken, Lauri Rasnick and Douglas Weiner in our New York Office have recently authored an article in conjunction with a major national Continuing Legal Education program in Washington entitled: “ An Overview of Wage Hour Laws and Litigation: Avoiding the Pitfalls of Back Wage Claims” which outlines the major traps employers can fall into and outlines ways to avoid the problems before litigation begins.

By:  Kara M. Maciel and Casey Cosentino

We were recently asked by a client to provide guidance on the wage and hour issues associated with company-provided on-line training programs for non-exempt employees.  Questions were raised as to when the training is "voluntary" and whether the time must be compensated if the training is completed at home using a personal computer.  The answer stems from federal wage and hour law, which provides that such time is likely compensable for non-exempt employees.     

The Fair Labor Standards Act requires employers to compensate employees for all hours worked regardless if the work performed is on or off the job site. Consequently, most time employees spend in training programs is compensable hours worked. Attending training is not compensable, however, if all of the following four criteria are met:

1. Attendance is outside of the employee’s regular working hours;

2. Attendance is in fact voluntary;

3. The training is not directly related to the employee’s job; and

4. The employee does not perform any productive work during such attendance.

Typically, it is the second and third factors that generate most of the wage and hour issues associated with employee training.      

First, training is not voluntary when it is required by the employer, or the employee understands or is led to believe that non-attendance would negatively affect his/her present working conditions or the continuance of his/her employment. Therefore, for attendance to be voluntary, employers must not directly or indirectly pressure employees to attend training programs, or impose employment-related consequences for non-attendance.  

Second, training is not directly related to an employee’s job when the training is designed to prepare the employee for advancement or promotion.  Conversely, training intended to improve employees’ efficiency and/or effectiveness in their current jobs is directly related to the employees’ job.

If an employer offers online training outside paid working hours and do not want to pay non-exempt employees for their time spent on the training, employers should do the following:  

·         Restrict employees’ participation in the training to non-working hours only;

·         Do not mandate employees’ participate, explicitly or implicitly;

·         Do not impose adverse consequences for employees non-participation;

·          Do not condition employees’ continued employment on completing the training;

·         Analyze the training to ensure it is designed to qualify employees for a new job or promotion (and is not intended to enhance employees’ current job skills); and

·         Ensure the employees do not perform other work during the training.

If all of the above factors are not satisfied, then employers must compensate their employees for any time spent completing the online training.  Because the requirements for providing non-compensable training are particular and precise, and the cost of non-compliance can be costly under the FSLA for unpaid time and/or missed overtime, the conservative wage and hour approach is to offer online training during paid working hours.    

By:  Amy Traub and Desiree Busching

On February 1, 2012, a former intern of the Hearst Corporations’ Harper’s Bazaar filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. The lawsuit alleges that the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and applicable state laws by failing to pay minimum wage and overtime to interns. The use of unpaid interns is a widespread practice, especially in the retail, publication, and real estate industries, as well as in Hollywood. In fact, in September 2011, a similar lawsuit was filed against Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc., claiming that the company used unpaid interns so it could make the film “Black Swan” more cheaply.  As reported in the book Intern Nation: How to Earn Nothing and Learn Little in the Brave New Economy, internships save firms roughly $600 million every year. 

Aside from the prestige that may accompany an unpaid internship for a dream employer, recession markets lead many job seekers to try to get their foot in the door by interning without pay.  Similarly, companies often view unpaid internships as a win-win: they get additional staffing without increasing their budgets and can train them for possible future employment without incurring any costs, while the interns get field experience to help them land a paying job.  As the complaint against the Hearst Corporation asserts, “[u]npaid interns are becoming the modern-day equivalent of entry-level employees.” 

But as the recent complaints against the Hearst Corporation and Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. demonstrate, companies utilizing the services of unpaid interns must tread carefully or they could face significant wage and hour liability, especially in light of the increased focus on unpaid interns in the legal arena.   Federal and state wage and hour laws provide multi-factor tests to determine whether an intern is actually an “intern,” or if he/she should instead be classified as an “employee,” and thus entitled to compensation.

The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”), for example, uses the following six-factor test to determine whether such an individual qualifies as an “intern” under the FLSA:

1. The internship, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to training which would be given in an educational environment;
2. The internship experience is for the benefit of the intern;
3. The intern does not displace regular employees, but works under close supervision of existing staff;
4. The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern; and on occasion its operations may actually be impeded;
5. The intern is not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the internship; and
6. The employer and the intern understand that the intern is not entitled to wages for the time spent in the internship.

If the above factors are met, then the intern is not entitled to minimum wage or overtime under the FLSA.  However, many states have their own wage and hour laws with additional factors to consider in determining whether a worker is an “intern,” and thus not entitled to compensation, or an “employee,” who must be paid in accordance with minimum wage and overtime laws. For example, New York utilizes an 11-factor test, and California, which also previously had an 11-factor test but departed from that precedent in April 2010, now employs a 6-factor test similar to that used by the DOL.

Therefore, in order to protect themselves from wage and hour liability for use of unpaid interns, employers must be sure to check both federal and state wage and hour laws, and should speak with counsel if they are unsure if interns are being assigned appropriate work or are otherwise classified appropriately under applicable laws.

By: John F. Fullerton, III, Douglas Weiner, and Meg Thering

The plague of lawsuits for unpaid overtime compensation by employees who claim that they were misclassified by their current or former employer as “exempt” from overtime under the “administrative” exemption of the Fair Labor Standards Act shows no signs of receding.  These lawsuits continue to present challenges to employers, not just in terms of the burdens and costs of defending the cases, but in the uncertainty of the potential financial exposure.

Read the full article online. 

By Michael Kun and Aaron Olsen

Plaintiffs seeking to bring state law wage-hour class actions against employers in the trucking industry have run into a significant road block in California.  For the second time in a year, a United States District Court has held that claims based on California’s meal and rest period laws are preempted by federal law.

In Esquivel et al. v. Performance Food Group Inc., the plaintiffs claimed the defendant scheduled their delivery routes such that the plaintiffs were unable to take duty-free meal periods.  The defendant argued that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (“FAAA”) preempted California’s meal and rest period laws.  Judge Nguyen of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California agreed with the defendant and dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice.  This decision comes only months after the Southern District of California’s October 2011 ruling in Dilts v. Penske Logistics, LLC, also holding that California’s meal and rest period laws are within the preemptive scope of the FAAAA.  Both courts found that the length and timing of meal and rest periods are “directly and significantly related to such things as the frequency and scheduling of transportation” such that requiring off-duty meal and rest periods at specific times would interfere with competitive market forces within the industry.

As employers with operations in California know, class actions alleging that employees missed meal or rest periods have become commonplace.  These two victories are significant ones for employers in the trucking industry.  However, the plaintiffs in both cases are seeking to appeal the decisions.  Trucking industry employers will want to monitor those appeals closely as it is always difficult to predict how the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will rule.