18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 391 made under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. Likewise, the Appellate Division concluded that Plaintiffs’ disparate impact age discrimination claim was unavailing. For these reasons, the Appellate Division reversed the order annulling Defendant’s decision to deny certification to the judges who reached the mandatory retirement age of 70. D. Other State Law Rulings Affecting The Defense Of Workplace Class Action Litigation (i) California All of Us Or None – Riverside Chapter, et al. v. Hamrick, 2021 Cal. App. LEXIS 441 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. May 26, 2021). Plaintiffs brought a class action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief alleging that Defendants improperly maintain the Riverside Superior Court’s records in criminal cases in various ways, including: (i) failing to properly destroy certain court records of old marijuana-related offenses as required under § 11361.5 of the California Health and Safety Code; (ii) allowing users of the Riverside Superior Court’s public website to search the court’s electronic index by inputting a Defendant’s known date of birth and driver’s license number in violation of Rule 2.507 of the California Rules of Court,; and (iii) disclosing protected criminal record information in violation of § 13300 of the California Penal Code. Plaintiffs also alleged that these practices invaded their right to privacy as embodied in the California Constitution. In terms of relief, Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief and a writ of mandate to remedy these violations. The trial court sustained Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiffs’ claim of a violations of Rule 2.507 and § 13300. Thereafter, the trial court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for summary adjudication as to Plaintiffs’ claims of violation of § 11361.5 and invasion of constitutional right to privacy and granted Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication as those claims of a violation. The trial court also denied Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief and writ of mandate. Having disposed of all of Plaintiffs’ claims, the trial court proceeded to enter judgment in favor of Defendants. On appeal before the California Court of Appeal, Plaintiffs challenged the trial court’s demurrer and summary judgment rulings. The Court of Appeal held that because Rule 2.507 prohibited the trial court from allowing searches of its electronic criminal index by an individual’s date of birth or driver’s license number, and Plaintiffs complaint had alleged that the trial court and its clerk permitted such searches, Plaintiff had adequately pled a violation of Rule 2.507. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in granting Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication as to Plaintiffs claim of the Rule 2.507 violation. The Court of Appeal also held that destruction of marijuana-related arrest and conviction records pursuant to § 11361.5 of the Health & Safety Code was not accomplished by using a black marker to redact references to the qualifying marijuana-related offense because § 11361.5 required permanent obliteration so that the record appeared as if the arrest or conviction ever occurred. For these reasons, the Court of Appeal held that the trial court also erred when it sustained Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiffs’ claim of a violation of § 11361.5. Finally the Court of Appeal held that summary adjudication was properly denied on Plaintiffs’ claim for invasion of California’s constitutional right to privacy because disputed facts existed as to the extent and gravity of privacy violations. In its order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the trial court granted judgment as a matter of law for Defendants on Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief and writ of mandate. In light of its reversal of the trial court’s rulings on several of the underlying substantive causes of actions supporting Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory and injunctive relief, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order granting judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiffs’ causes of action seeking declaratory relief and a writ of mandate. For these reasons, the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of the trial court. Association For Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, et al. v. County Of Los Angeles, 2021 Cal. App. LEXIS 75 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Jan. 29, 2021). Plaintiff, a union representing deputy sheriffs, sought a writ of mandate and declaration that a provision of a memorandum of understanding (“MOU”) between the union and Defendant was unenforceable. Specifically, Plaintiff challenged the validity of Article 18 of the MOU that governed paycheck errors. After a conversion to a new payroll system, Defendant failed to apply an agreed-upon cap to certain bonus payments resulting in salary overpayments to 107 deputies. Defendant then deducted the overpayment from the employees’ paychecks. Plaintiff challenged the lawfulness of the Defendant’s deductions and sought to compel Defendant to comply with state laws and statutes of limitations. Plaintiff also alleged that the deductions violated § 221 of the California Labor Code (“CLC”), which makes it unlawful for any employer to collect or receive from an employee any part of wages paid by the employer to the employee. As such, Plaintiff argued that the MOU did not and could not lawfully authorize Defendants to unilaterally deduct from the employees’