18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 235 California Supreme Court also previously held that § § 204 and 226 of the Labor Code applied to flight attendants who either perform a majority of their work in California or who did not perform a majority of their work in any one state and were based for work purposes in California. Id . at *3. Plaintiff Oman did not meet the requirements of the California Supreme Court’s test, and the Ninth Circuit thus affirmed the District Court’s entry of summary judgment in Defendant’s favor on the timing-of-pay and wage-statement claims asserted by Oman. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the District Court’s ruling on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Powell, et al. v. Wal-Mart, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20777 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 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, which the Court denied. During their employment, Plaintiffs earned sick pay and non-discretionary incentive wages including "MYSHARE Incentive Pay," a bonus based on employees and stores meeting performance goals. Id. at *2. Plaintiffs alleged they were not paid adequate sick pay during their employment because their sick pay did not include non-discretionary incentive wages, such as the MYSHARE Incentive Pay, in violation of § 246 of the CLC. Id. Plaintiffs further contended that Defendant failed to pay for waiting time penalties in violation of § 203 of the CLC because the sick pay was not paid immediately when they left their employment. Defendant moved to dismiss on the basis that the alleged violations were not willful, and that they failed as a matter of law. Accordingly, Defendant contended that Plaintiffs failed to plausibly plead an essential element of a violation of § 203 of the CLC, and therefore the claim should be dismissed. The Court determined that Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that sick pay should be considered "wages" for purposes of the CLC and that Defendant willfully failed to pay sick pay at the proper rate, including the MYSHARE incentive pay. The Court noted that the bar to allege willful action was not a high one under California law, and Plaintiffs here met that low bar to survive a motion to dismiss. Thus, the Court held that Plaintiffs had plausibly alleged Defendant acted willfully. For these reasons, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Reyes, et al. v. Sky Chefs, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17745 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2021). Plaintiff, a non- exempt employee, filed a class and collective action alleging that Defendant violated various provisions of the California Labor Code. Plaintiff previously sent a Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) notice to the California Labor and Workplace Development Agency (“LWDA”) alleging that Defendant failed to pay premium wages to employees who "routinely" were unable to take the meal and rest breaks and also asserting derivative claims for penalties associated with wage statements and waiting times premised on the meal and rest break claims. Id . at *3. Plaintiff thereafter filed a representative action complaint asserting only a PAGA claim predicated on the meal and rest break violations and the derivative wage statement and waiting time penalty claims. Following an unsuccessful mediation, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”), adding class claims, including claim one, the failure to pay minimum and overtime wages resulting from the inability to take meal and rest breaks. Plaintiff further alleged that Defendant’s failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements was knowing and intentional and caused injury to her and the putative class members. Defendant moved to dismiss: (i) the PAGA claim on the ground that Plaintiff’s PAGA notice to the LWDA was defective; (ii) the wage statement penalties claim because it was barred by the one-year statute of limitations; and (iii) the claim for unpaid minimum and overtime wages to limit the class period to four years before the filing of the FAC. The Court denied the motion to dismiss the PAGA claim because the notice provided sufficient detail, denied the motion to dismiss the penalties claim because it related back to the PAGA claim under Rule 15(c)(1), and limited the class period for the unpaid wages claim to four years before the filing of the FAC because the claim did not relate back under Rule 15(c)(1). The Court therefore granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss in part by limiting the minimum wage and overtime claims to the four-year period preceding the filing of the complaint. The Court otherwise denied Defendant’s motion. Rodrigue, et al. v. Lowe ’ s Home Centers, LLC , Case No. 20-CV-1127 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2021). Plaintiff filed a class action alleging that Defendant failed to pay manual workers weekly and failed to provide accurate wage statements as required by the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Court denied the motion with respect to Plaintiff’s claim for untimely payments, and granted the motion with respect to improper wage statements. Plaintiff asserted that Defendant violated § 191 of the NYLL, which provides that a “manual worker shall be paid weekly and not later than seven calendar days after