18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 281 wages, and working conditions. Accordingly, because the CBA applied to Plaintiff and met the requirements of § 514, the Court held that Plaintiff did not have a right to overtime under § 510, thereby making his right to overtime necessarily exist “solely as a result of the CBA." Id . at *8. The Court also agreed with Defendant that the meal period claims were preempted, as § 512 also expressly exempted from its terms certain employees who were subject to qualifying CBAs who worked in "an electrical corporation, gas corporation, or a local publicly owned electric utility" Id . at *14. The Court found that Defendant was a gas and electric company, and Plaintiff’s employment terms were subject to the parties’ CBA. Accordingly, the Court held that Plaintiff’s claims were preempted by § 301, and it denied Plaintiff’s motion to remand. Silva, et al. v. Medic Ambulance Services, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 13204 (9th Cir. May 4, 2021). Plaintiff, an ambulance driver, filed a state court class action alleging that Defendant required drivers to remain on-call during rest breaks in violation of the California Labor Code. Defendant removed the action to the District Court on the basis that the Labor-Management Relations Act (“LMRA”) preempted Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff filed a motion to remand, and the District Court denied the motion. On Plaintiff’s appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the District Court’s ruling. The Ninth Circuit explained that a state law would be preempted under the LMRA if the claims were "substantially dependent on analysis of a collective bargaining agreement." Id . at *4. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant violated § 226 of the Labor Code by requiring that drivers remain on-call while on rest periods. The Ninth Circuit agreed with Plaintiff that the right to duty-free rest breaks was conferred by California law, and not the parties’ agreements in the collective bargaining agreement. The Ninth Circuit held that there would be no need to interpret the collective bargaining agreement at all to resolve Plaintiff’s claim. Hence, the Ninth Circuit determined that the District Court erred in finding that Plaintiff’s claims were preempted by the LMRA. For these reasons, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the District Court’s ruling denying the motion to remand. (xxvi) Preemptive Motion Issues In FLSA Collective Actions Alesius, et al. v. Pittsburgh Logistics Systems , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72540 (W.D. Penn. April 15, 2021) . Plaintiffs, a group of Account Executive Trainees (“AETs”), filed a class and collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (“PMWA”), and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law (“PWPCL”). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6). The Court denied the motion. Plaintiffs contended that they regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek without being paid overtime compensation, even after informing their supervisors that they were working overtime without being paid for it. Defendant contended that the claims should be dismiss because the Court should not assert supplemental jurisdiction over the PWPCL claims because the proof and scope of the PWPCL’s state law issues substantially predominated over the FLSA claims. Id . at *4. Defendant further contended that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because there was no evidence of employment contracts between the AETs and Defendant. Finally, Defendant argued that Plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege numerosity in the putative class, and that the named Plaintiffs were not similarly-situated to the proposed collective action members because they were not employed as AETs. Id . at *4-5. First, as to the PWPCL claim, the Court found that Plaintiffs’ WPCL claims turned on their express employment contracts, which did not present novel issues of state law. Additionally, the Court noted that the WPCL and FLSA claims arose from the same facts relating to the allegations that Plaintiffs routinely worked more than 40 hours per week without overtime compensation. Id . at *9-10. Accordingly, the Court held the because the WPCL and FLSA claims arose from the same nucleus of operative facts and it had discretion to hear supplemental claims, the Court would exercise its discretion over the PWPCL claim in the interests of judicial economy. Id. at *10. The Court reasoned that as to the evidence of employment contracts between the parties, the totality of the complaint sufficiently evidenced a contractual employment relationship. The Court opined that the specifics of the employment relationship could be developed during the discovery period. Id . at *11. Further, the Court ruled that any questions about the numerosity of the PMWA and WPCL claims would be better reserved for the class certification stage. Id . at *12. The Court determined that the named Plaintiffs’ claims should not be dismissed, as they were, during the relevant claim period, employed as AETs. The fact that they transferred to other positions within the company did not warrant dismissal of the claims. Id . at *13-14. For these reasons, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss in its entirety.