18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

280 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition pandemic circumstances was inequitable, and the retention of the benefits conferred by Plaintiff through his continued work during the pandemic without the corresponding premium pay was equally inequitable. Id . at *16- 17. Accordingly, the Court denied Defendant’s motion as to Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim. For this reason, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. International Brotherhood Of Teamsters, Local 2785, et al. v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration , 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 1151 (9th Cir. Jan. 15, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group comprised of a labor union, individual truck drivers, and California’s Labor Commissioner, filed petitions for review of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (“FMCSA”) determination that federal hours-of-service regulations preempted California’s meal and rest break rules (“MRB rules”) with respect to property-carrying commercial vehicles. As compared federal regulations, California’s MRB rules required employers to implement more breaks for truck drivers with less opportunity to set the timing of those breaks. Id. at *6. Prior to 2018, the FMCSA had declined to preempt California’s MRB rules in the commercial truck driving context, maintaining that the MRB rules applied beyond the trucking industry. Id. at *12. However, in 2018, the FMCSA determined that federal hours-of-service regulations preempted the MRB Rules, reasoning that these California laws did apply to commercial motor vehicle transportation. Plaintiffs filed petitions for review of the FMCSA’s preemption determination, but the Ninth Circuit denied the petitions. In their petitions for review, Plaintiffs contended that California’s MRB rules were not specifically directed at commercial motor vehicle safety, and the FMCSA countered that its interpretation warrants agency deference pursuant to Chevron, U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. , 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Id. at *14-15. As an initial matter, the Ninth Circuit noted that Chevron deference did apply since federal agencies interpreting ambiguous statutes typically receive such deference. Under the Chevron framework, judges assess whether an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute constitutes a permissible construction, and here, the Ninth Circuit found the FMCSA’s interpretation to be permissible. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit opined that “[t]he FMCSA could reasonably conclude that a State law disrupts regulatory uniformity even when the law was not specifically directed at commercial vehicle motor safety because a broader State law could still cover the same subject matter as FMCSA regulations.” Id. at *20. Plaintiffs also challenged the FMCSA’s finding that the MRB rules were “additional to or more stringent than” federal regulations on the basis that California law allowed flexibility for employers, including the option to pay employees for an additional hour of pay instead of providing the required meal or rest breaks. The Ninth Circuit rejected this argument as well, holding that California law was more stringent than federal regulations and even allowed for an employer’s failure to provide the required meal or rest breaks to be enforced as a misdemeanor crime. Id. at *29. Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit also agreed with the FMCSA’s holding that the MRB rules “impose significant and substantial costs stemming from decreased productivity and administrative burden” because various public comments demonstrated how the MRB rules’ “demanding break requirements” negatively impacted productivity and efficient operations. Id. at *32-33. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit denied Plaintiffs’ petitions for review. Radcliff, et al. v. San Diego Gas & Electric, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27866 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2021) . Plaintiff filed a state court class action asserting claims against Defendants for an alleged: (i) failure to pay minimum wages; (ii) failure to pay overtime wages; (iii) failure to provide meal periods; (iv) failure to provide rest periods; (v) failure to indemnify their employees for necessary business expenses; (vi) failure to maintain their employment records; (vii) failure to furnish accurate and itemized wage statements; (viii) failure to pay wages in a timely manner to current employees; (ix) failure to pay wages due at the end of employment; and (x) unfair and unlawful business practices in violation of the California Labor Code (“CLC”). Additionally, Plaintiff brought a cause of action under the California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"). Defendants removed the action on the grounds that § 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act ("LMRA") preempted Plaintiff’s overtime and meal period claims because he was subject to a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA"). The Court thereafter granted Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of the CLC claims pursuant to the parties’ arbitration agreement, and subsequently dismissed those claims without prejudice. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to remand the remaining PAGA claim, arguing that it could not be preempted under § 301 of the LMRA because it was brought in a representative capacity to protect the public’s rights under the CLC Id . at *7. The Court denied the motion. Plaintiff asserted that the PAGA claims for civil penalties were derivative of the overtime and meal period claims. The Court determined that Defendants demonstrated that Plaintiff was an employee who was subject to a CBA that was compliant with § 514, which provided for Plaintiff’s hours of work,