The other day, an attorney told me he believes that the decade-long wave of misclassification class actions in California is all but over.
Considering the fact that I'm currrently handling several such cases, I told him I disagreed: the wave may have crested several years ago, but it is not over.
We may both have been wrong. 
A much-publicized Ninth Circuit opinion earlier this week suggests that these cases in fact are alive and well in California, and it may serve as an impetus for the increased filing of more such actions.
On Tuesday, in Lynne Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., the Ninth Circuit affirmed a $7.7 million award to a class of journalists writing for a Chinese language newspaper.   
The history of the case -- a hybrid state/FLSA action -- is truly a tortured one, and I will leave it to you to review the history in the Ninth Circuit opinion, if you are so inclined.  It involves a jury trial, a bench trial, and allegations of coerced "opt outs," most of which may be more interesting to lawyers than non-lawyers.
What is most important is that the Ninth Circuit concluded that journalists for the paper had been misclassified as exempt.  It concluded that their work required "intelligence, diligence and accuracy" -- not "imagination, originality or talent."  As such, they could not be properly classified as exempt under the creative professional exemption, and were entitled to unpaid overtime, premium pay for missed meal periods, and a host of statutory penalties.
While the misclassification of journalists may appear to be a subject of little or limited interest to employers outside that industry, the Ninth Circuit's analysis is one that is worthy of review.  It may provide a road map to plaintiffs' counsel in other cases as to what to argue where an employer has relied upon the creative professional exemption, as well as providing some suggestions as to how to attack other exemptions.  
The decision should serve as yet another reminder to employers to review carefully the designations of employees as exempt.   
Back to Wage and Hour Defense Blog Blog

Search This Blog

Blog Editors

Related Services



Jump to Page


Sign up to receive an email notification when new Wage and Hour Defense Blog posts are published:

Privacy Preference Center

When you visit any website, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. This information might be about you, your preferences or your device and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to. The information does not usually directly identify you, but it can give you a more personalized web experience. Because we respect your right to privacy, you can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Click on the different category headings to find out more and change our default settings. However, blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information.

Performance Cookies

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited our site, and will not be able to monitor its performance.