18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 231 its employees although the nature of their work would have reasonably permitted the use of seats, especially when working as a cashier, data entry and performing other tasks." Id . at *3. The Court noted that Plaintiff complied with the pre-suit requirement of the PAGA by providing written notice of the alleged violations to the Labor Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") and to the employer. The Court explained that a PAGA notice for a suitable seating claim is sufficient if it provides: (i) the specific statute allegedly violated; (ii) the facts about what position Plaintiffs held; (iii) a statement that Plaintiffs could use a seat in their position; and (iv) specific identification of who was allegedly harmed. Id . at *4-5. The Court found that Plaintiff’s notice was sufficient as it contained all the required information. Defendant contended that the notice was deficient because it used the same language as the statute upon which the claim relied. Id . at *6. In rejecting Defendant’s position, the Court opined that suitable seating claims were simple, and that in addition to the language in the statute, Plaintiff included her position as that of a "retail clerk," and she asserted that she and similarly-situated employees were required to stand or walk all day when they reasonably could have used seats in their positions. Id . at *7-8. The Court concluded that Plaintiff sufficiently met the PAGA requirements to state a suitable seating claim, and it therefore denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Fleming, et al. v. Matco Tools Corp., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207080 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2021). Plaintiff, a franchisee owner, filed a class action alleging that Defendant misclassified him and other franchisee owners as independent contractors rather than employees. Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiff’s overtime, meal and rest break, waiting time, and wage deduction claims under the California Labor Law. The Court granted in part and denied in part the motion. The Court held that judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiff’s claim brought pursuant to the California Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) was not warranted because under the manageability doctrine, it did not matter which issue predominated, but whether there were so many individualized inquiries as to make the matter impracticable to adjudicate, and the small number present here made the class not unmanageable. Defendant contended that it was entitled to judgment on the pleadings because the California statute prohibiting non-compete clauses rendered them void, but not "prohibited by law," so they could not result in § 432.5 penalties. Id . at *12. The Court agreed that nothing in the statutory text of § 432.5 "prohibits" or "forbids” employers and employees “by law" from entering into non- competes; it only provided that, when they do, the offending provision was "of no legal effect." Id . at *13. The Court therefore granted Defendant’s motion for Plaintiff’s claim pursuant to § 432.5. Defendant argued that Plaintiff did not have a private right of action under § § 2210 and 400-10 and the California IWC Wage Order No. 7, alleging unlawful collection and receipt of earned wages. The Court rejected Defendant’s argument, and held that there was no indication the Legislature intended to leave only the state, not individuals, to enforce the subsection in a statutory framework that revealed “a clear legislative intent to protect the minimum wage rights of California employees.” Id . at *21-22. The Court thus denied Defendant’s motion for judgment for Plaintiff’s § § 2210 and 400-10 claims. For these reasons, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Hansber, et al. v. Ulta Beauty Cosmetics, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192456 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of former employees, filed a class action alleging that Defendant failed to pay all wages due in violation of the California Labor Code (“CLC”). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), which the Court granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs contended that Defendant failed to provide legally compliant meal and rest periods. Plaintiffs asserted that Defendant had uniformly applied policies and practices, pursuant to which they were required to spend part of their meal and rest periods traveling to and from breakrooms and submitting to security protocols. Id . at *16-17. The Court held that Plaintiffs’ allegations sufficiently stated viable meal and rest period claims under California law to survive a motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs also alleged that Defendant failed to pay putative class members straight-time wages for all hours worked and premium wages for meal and rest period violations under § 226.7 of the CLC, and that these failures constituted wage statement violations. Id . at *22-23. Plaintiffs further contended that Defendant failed to maintain accurate records showing shift times, total hours worked, total wages, bonuses, and incentives earned, and all deductions made. Id . at *23. The Court explained that Plaintiffs’ wage statement claim were predicated on the straight-time wages, meal period, and rest period claims, and that Plaintiffs were subjected to mandatory policies regarding travel time and security protocols that were uniformly applied and enforced by their supervisors. Id . at *24. The Court concluded that when put together, the allegations supported Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendant’s wage statement violations were knowing and intentional. Plaintiffs further alleged that separation wages were not timely paid after their