18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

228 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition which Defendants contacted them, or what Defendants said during these contacts that Plaintiffs believe to be coercive. The Court therefore found that Plaintiffs failed to make a showing of "exceptional circumstances" sufficient to overcome the presumption against prior restraints and warrant the entry of an order enjoining Defendants from contacting Plaintiffs to settle the case. Id . at *3. The Court reasoned that there was no indication that Defendants made any threats during any call or that any party was intimidated. Accordingly, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ request. (vi) Concurrent State Law Claims In Wage & Hour Class Actions Barragan, et al. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154978 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of retail employees, filed a class action alleging that Defendant failed to pay the correct overtime rate to workers in violation of the California Labor Code. Plaintiffs asserted that, prior to September 2018, Defendant did not adjust overtime payments to account for the additional wages it paid through the Success Sharing bonus program when it awarded the minimum ($100 or $200) Success Sharing bonus payments. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which the Court granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs first claim for relief alleged that Defendant provided inaccurate wage statements based on its failure to account for the bonus payments in calculating the hourly rate. The Court opined that because the rate was actually a "fictional" hourly rate calculated only after the pay period had closed, the Labor Code did not mandate that this fictional hourly rate appear on wage statements. Accordingly, the Court granted Defendant’s motion as to the inaccurate wage statements claim. In addition, the Court found that based on a plain reading of the current overtime laws, Defendant’s Success Sharing program offered two different kinds of bonuses, including: (i) a percentage-based bonus for those employees with awards over $100; and (ii) a flat sum bonus for those who received a $100 minimum bonus. Thus, the Court explained that the evidence merely showed that the bonus was paid as lump sum. Therefore, the Court held that Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that if the bonus was paid as a lump sum, and not included in the overtime pay, it could be in violation of state wage & hour laws. As no genuine dispute as to any material fact existed, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs were entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to that claim. Finally, the Court noted that Plaintiffs’ UCL claim did not add any possible recovery above that of the overtime claim, and was thus redundant. Accordingly, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss as to Plaintiffs’ UCL claim as it was duplicative of the overtime claim. In sum, the Court granted in part and denied in part the parties’ motions for summary judgment. Bernstein, et al. v. Virgin American, Inc., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 5197 (9th Cir. Feb. 23, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of California-based flight attendants, filed a class action alleging that Defendant committed various wage & hour violations under the California Labor Code. Specifically, Plaintiffs’ complaint asserted that Defendant failed to pay minimum wages, pay overtime wages, compensate flight attendants for every hour worked, provide for meal and rest breaks, provide accurate wage statements, and pay waiting time penalties. Plaintiffs also sought additional compensation under the California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, which the District Court granted. In its order, the District Court held that California Labor Code applied to all worked performed in California, and that Plaintiffs’ work-related connections with California were sufficient to file suit under the California Labor Code. Defendant appealed the District Court’s summary judgment order, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. On appeal, Defendant initially contended that the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution restricted application of the California Labor Code to Plaintiffs’ claims due to the interstate nature of Defendant’s aviation business. The Ninth Circuit disagreed. It found that Defendant had more contacts with California than any other state and failed to satisfy its burden of showing that it suffered harm from doing business in other states with different regulations. Id. at *14- 15. With respect to Plaintiffs’ causes of action, the Ninth Circuit referenced a recent decision by the California Supreme Court holding that an analogous compensation scheme to Defendant’s policy did not violate the California Labor Code’s provisions concerning minimum wage and payment for all hours worked where that scheme paid employees based on each duty period/rotation rather than on an hourly basis. Since Plaintiffs admitted in their answering brief that Defendant paid flight attendants based on block time worked, the Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment as to the minimum wage and payment for all hours worked claims. The Ninth Circuit also reversed summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ request for PAGA damages because Defendant was not aware that it was subject to California Labor Code until the District Court’s summary judgment order in this case. As to Plaintiffs’ other claims, however, the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor. The Ninth Circuit noted that Defendant did not dispute that it failed to pay overtime wages. Defendant argued that it