18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

386 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition argued that the trial court had erred in finding that that the withholdings from employee paychecks were unauthorized assignments of employee wages simply because it failed to provide any writing meeting the requirements of § 21-5-3(e). Defendant asserted that it was giving its employees advances of "cash" or "cash equivalents" when it allowed employees to purchase boots, uniforms, and tools using company credit accounts, and that it was recouping these "advances" through paycheck withholdings. Id . The Supreme Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that the withholdings were not "authorized deductions" as defined by the WPCA, and were not "authorized wage assignments" because Defendant could produce no document in compliance with § 21-5-3(e) showing it had received a valid, written assignment of wages from its employees. For these reasons, the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling granting summary judgment to Plaintiff and ordering repayment of withheld wages. C. Rulings In Breach Of Employment Contract/Miscellaneous Workplace Claims (i) Alaska State Of Alaska v. Alaska State Employees Association, et al. , Case No. 19-9971 (Alaska Super. Ct. Feb. 8, 2021). The Alaska State Employees Association (“ASEA”) filed a class action and a subsequent motion seeking a permanent injunction following the grant of a temporary restraining order blocking the State of Alaska’s administrative on union dues procedures, which would let workers stop paying dues outside of the limited periods that were defined in union agreements. The Court granted the motion. It found that the ASEA provided sufficient information that implementing the administrative order would unilaterally change union members’ dues deduction procedures in effect prior to the August 27, 2019, and would: (i) breach the collective bargaining agreement between the ASEA and the State; (ii) breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (iii) violate the separation of powers enshrined in the Alaska State Constitution as well as the Public Employment Relations Act; and (iv) violate the Administrative Procedures Act. Id . at 2. The Court ruled that ASEA was entitled to declaratory judgment that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution did not require the State to alter the union dues deduction practices that were in place prior to August 27, 2019, and did not require the steps set forth in the administrative order. Id . at 2-3. The Court also held that the ASEA was entitled to a permanent injunction prohibiting the State and third-party Defendants from implementing the administrative order changing the union dues deduction practices in place prior to August 27, 2019. For these reasons, the Court granted the motion for a permanent injunction. (ii) California Donohue, et al. v. AMN Services, LLC, Case No. D071865 (Cal. Feb. 25, 2021). Plaintiff, a nurse, brought a wage & hour class action challenging Defendant’s use of an electronic timekeeping system called “Team Time” to track its employees’ compensable time that rounded the time punches to the nearest 10-minute increment. The nurses were required to punch-in and punch-out of “Team Time,” including at the beginning of the day, at the beginning of lunch, at the end of lunch, and at the end of the day. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary adjudication on the basis that Defendant denied its employees compliant meal periods, improperly rounded time records for meal periods using “Team Time,” and failed to pay premium wages for non-compliant meal periods. To support the motion, Plaintiff submitted her own testimony that Defendant had an office culture that discouraged employees from taking full and timely lunches. Plaintiff also provided a declaration from an expert witness, stating that the use of “Team Time” resulted in the denial of premium wages for 40,110 short lunches and 6,651 delayed lunches during the class period, which totaled $802,077.08. Id . at 4. Defendant cross-moved for summary adjudication and argued that the practice of rounding in the meal period context was proper. The trial court granted Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication and denied Plaintiffs’ motion for summary adjudication on the meal period claim. The trial court concluded that there was insufficient evidence that Defendant had a policy or practice of denying employees compliant meal periods. According to the trial court, Defendant’s meal period policy complied with California law, and its practice of rounding the time punches for meal periods was proper. The trial court determined that even if no case has ever applied rounding to meal periods, the rationale behind allowing rounding for work time would be the same for meal break time. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment and generally agreed with the trial court’s reasoning as to the meal period claim. In ruling that it was proper for Defendant to round time punches for meal