18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

376 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition court’s ruling. The Court of Appeal determined that Plaintiffs’ notice filed with the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) did not allege violations flowing solely from an individual termination, and did not suggest that the violations were isolated. Id . at *10. The Court of Appeal explained that the notice referred to two aggrieved employees and complained largely of ongoing meal and rest break violations, and meal and rest break violations and related wage claims alleged by Plaintiffs were not the type of claims unique to a particular employee, as the applicable statutory protections extend to all non-exempt employees who simply report to work and perform their job duties on a daily basis. Id . at *12-13. The Court of Appeal rejected Defendant’s argument that the notice must contain a general reference to “a group of others” or to “other aggrieved employees” to inform the LWDA or the employer of the representative nature of a PAGA claim. Id . at *13. Therefore, the Court of Appeal found that because a PAGA claim as a matter of law was a claim “brought by an aggrieved employee on behalf of himself or herself and other current or former employees” and because Plaintiffs’ notice was not by nature or in context limited to an individual claim, Plaintiffs’ failure to state “and other aggrieved employees” did not expressly or impliedly limit the alleged violations to Plaintiff alone. Id . at *14. For these reasons, the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the trial court’s ruling. Turrieta, et al. v. Lyft Inc., 2021 Cal. App. LEXIS 815 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Sept. 30, 2021). Plaintiff filed a representative action under the California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA) alleging that Defendant misclassified its California drivers as independent contractors rather than employees, thereby violating multiple provisions of the California Labor Code (“CLC”). Following a mediation, Plaintiff and Defendant reached a settlement. After Plaintiff moved the Court for approval of the settlement, the two other drivers for Defendant who had each also filed separate PAGA claims sought to intervene in the matter and object to the settlement. Specifically, the other drivers argued that Defendant had engaged in a “reverse auction” by settling with Plaintiff for an unreasonably low amount, and that the settlement contained other provisions that were unlawful and inconsistent with the PAGA’s purpose. The settlement agreement covered all individuals who provided at least one ride as a driver on Defendant’s platform from April 30, 2017, to December 31, 2019. Defendant estimated the group to include a maximum of 565,000 individuals. The settlement required Defendant to pay approximately $15 million in total, including a $14,000 enhancement payment to Plaintiff, and $5 million in attorneys’ fees and costs to Plaintiff’s counsel, and $6 million to be paid to PAGA group members, and over $3 million in penalties paid to the state. The trial court rejected the driver’s requests to intervene on the grounds that the drivers lacked standing. The trial court approved the settlement based on its finding that it was fair and adequate. The trial court also denied the subsequent motions of the drivers to vacate the judgment under § 663 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the drivers’ appeal to the California Court of Appeal, the drivers argued that the trial court erred in approving the settlement, and also in denying their motions to intervene and to vacate the judgment. Plaintiff and Defendant, for their part, argued that, as non-parties, the drivers lacked standing to seek any relief in this case, and further maintained that the settlement was proper. The Court of Appeal held that the drivers had no personal interest in the issues before the trial court, and therefore lacked standing to appeal the trial court’s approval of the settlement agreement under the PAGA because the State of California was the real party in interest. Moreover, the Court of Appeal concluded that the drivers could not obtain a right to appeal by moving to vacate the judgment for which they also lacked standing to do. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court did not err in denying mandatory or permissive intervention because the drivers did not have a direct and immediate interest in the settlement by virtue of being Plaintiffs in different PAGA actions and any individual rights they might have had would not be precluded under the PAGA settlement. As such, the Court of Appeal ruled that the trial court did not err when it denied the drivers’ motion to intervene. For these reasons, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s orders. Usher, et al. v. White, 2021 Cal. App. LEXIS 448 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. May 28, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of service technicians, brought a putative wage & hour class action against Defendants White Communications, LLC and DirecTV. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants misclassified Plaintiffs as independent contractors in order to force them to routinely work seven days a week in shifts that lasted over 10 or 12 hours a day, and failed to pay them overtime. Defendants paid Plaintiffs by the job, whereby Plaintiffs typically earned about $250 to $275 a day. Plaintiffs contracted with White Communications, but worked exclusively for DirecTV. In early 2018, Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add Shirley White and her son Jeff White who had formed White Communications pursuant to § 558.1 of the California Labor Code (“CLC”). Shirley declared under penalty of perjury that: (i) Jeff formed White Communications in Iowa; (ii) that she at one point was designated secretary