18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

230 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition not satisfy the requirements of § 2751 in any other written agreement. For these reasons, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Curry, et al. v. P&G Auditors & Consultants, LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149402 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of auditors, filed a class and collective action alleging that Defendants failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA and the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”). Defendant Apple Bank filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that it was not Plaintiffs’ employer under either the FLSA or the NYLL. The Court denied the motion as premature. Plaintiffs were hired as contracted employees pursuant to a consent order with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation requiring Apple Bank to review suspicious activity at the bank. Apple Bank entered into a master services agreement with Defendant GRC, a technology consulting services firm, which would provide agents to Apple Bank to "test, monitor and validate Apple Bank’s Compliance Program, including the Bank’s suspicious activity monitoring system." Id . at *3. Plaintiffs were all agents signed to work at Apple Bank under the services agreement. Plaintiffs contended that they were jointly employed by Apple Bank and GBC, such that both entities were liable for overtime compensation violations. Plaintiffs alleged that they used Apple Bank’s computers, email, paper, and information technology to perform their work, and they received regular feedback on their work from Apple Bank employees. In turn, Apple Bank responded that it did not hire, fire, or pay Plaintiffs, that it did not retain Plaintiffs’ employment records, that it engaged Plaintiffs only indirectly (at the behest of regulators for a limited time), and that it was contractually prohibited by a non-solicitation agreement with GRC from hiring Plaintiffs for employment. Id . at *14. The Court ultimately determined there were materials questions or law and fact regarding whether or not Apple Bank qualified as Plaintiffs’ employer under the law. The Court noted that further discovery needed to occur in order to properly rule on the issue. The Court reasoned that even when viewed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, it could be that after discovery, the Court would rule in favor of Plaintiffs on the issue. For these reasons, the Court denied Apple Bank’s motion for summary judgment. De La Luz Bautista-Perez, et al. v. Juul Labs , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80631 (N.D. Cal. April 27, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of campaign employees, filed a class action alleging that Defendant Juul Labs, Inc.’s ("JLI") and Defendant Coalition for Reasonable Vaping Regulation’s ("CRVR") failed to: (i) pay wages owed at separation, (ii) furnish accurate wage statements; (iii) pay minimum wages, (iv) pay the San Francisco minimum wage, (v) pay overtime wages, (vi) reimburse business expenses, and (vii) provide meal periods in violation of California wage & hour laws. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court denied. Defendants asserted that they could not be liable for any wage & hour violations because they were not Plaintiffs’ employers as a matter of law. The Court determined that Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding the level of control that JLI’s executive director exercised over the workers’ actions and duties sufficiently established that it was an employer under the law. The Court also held that Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that JLI exercised a degree of control and supervision over how campaign workers conducted their phone banking, which groups of campaign workers carried out particular tasks, and what hours workers would be in the field. Id . at *9-10. In its motion to dismiss, CRVR argued that Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding training manuals and phone banking scripts were insufficient to show control over wages, hours, or working conditions for purposes of the joint-employer inquiry. Id . at *10. However, the Court noted that Plaintiffs’ allegations with respect to CRVR were not limited to CRVR providing training manuals and scripts, as they also alleged that CRVR hired four "field staff" whose duties included "supporting the field program with voter identification and outreach as it relates to the outreach program." Id . at *11. Plaintiffs further contended that the field staff, who were hired and paid directly by CRVR, were part of a group of administrators and leads who ran the phone banking and canvassing operations on a day-to-day basis. Id . Accordingly, the Court found that although the authority was not quite clear at this stage of the litigation, California law allows the Court to look past superficial distinctions to examine which parties exercised actual control. Accordingly, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Diaz, et al. v. Macy ’ s West Stores, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115412 (C.D. Cal. June 21, 2021). Plaintiff, an hourly employee, filed a class action alleging that Defendant failed to: (i) maintain records and provide accurate itemized wage statements; (ii) pay minimum wages and proper overtime wages; (iii) provide suitable seating for employees; (iv) reimburse all necessary expenditures or losses; and (v) pay all wages upon termination in violation of the Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s suitable seating claim, which the Court denied. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant "refused to provide adequate seating to