18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 411 dependent on hours worked, and thus could not be established by class-wide proof. The Court of Appeal also found that Defendant’s liability for unreimbursed business expenses likewise would depended on individual proof. The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court did not err in finding that the class action procedure was not superior to separate individual actions for these claims. For these reasons, the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the trial court’s denial of class certification as to the itemized wage statement claim, and affirmed as to all other claims. Winns, et al. v. Postmates Inc., 66 Cal. App. 5th 803 (Cal. App. 5th Dist. 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of couriers, filed a class action alleging that Defendant, a delivery service, classified couriers as independent contractors rather than employees and thus failed to pay all wages due them in violation of the California Labor Code (“CLC”). Plaintiffs also brought a representative claim under the California Private Attorney General Act. Defendant moved to compel arbitration of Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to the fleet agreement they signed when logging-in to Defendant’s application for the first time. The trial court granted in part and denied the motion. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The trial court had found that a valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties, and granted the motion to compel arbitration with respect to Plaintiffs’ individual claims under the CLC. The trial court further held that as to Plaintiffs’ civil penalty claim under the PAGA, it could not compel that claim to arbitration and stayed the claim pending the outcome of the arbitration of Plaintiffs’ individual claims. The trial court also noted that arbitration was barred under a clause in the parties’ arbitration agreement stating that “an arbitrator shall not have any authority to arbitrate a representative action.” Id . at 807. Defendant argued on appeal that the trial court’s decision to refuse to enforce the arbitration agreement according to its terms was erroneous. In denying Plaintiffs’ petition with respect to their PAGA claim, the trial court followed the California Supreme Court’s decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC 59 Cal.4th 348 (2014), which held that representative action waivers were unenforceable. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court that Iskanian controlled here, and it rejected Defendant’s arguments that Iskanian was abrogated by subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decisions. For these reasons, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling. Zamora v. Overhill Farms, Case No. B302764 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. March 29, 2021). Plaintiff, a union employee, brought a putative class action alleging various wage & hour violations of California Labor Code (“CLC”) and Wage Order No. 5-2001, including meal and rest break violations, minimum wage, and overtime violations. Defendant removed the lawsuit on the basis of preemption under § 301(a) of the Labor-Management Relations Management Act (“LMRA”), since Plaintiff’s claims required interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) that contained a provision regarding arbitration of grievances. The case was remanded, however, because the claims were grounded in application of state law and any interpretation of the CBA was incidental. Defendant then moved to compel arbitration on the basis that the CBA required arbitration of Plaintiff’s claims. The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration. It determined that the presumption in favor of arbitration did not apply in this case because the contract was a CBA. Thus, the trial court concluded that in these circumstances a CBA would not be deemed to waive an employee’s right to pursue statutory claims in a judicial forum unless that waiver is clear and unmistakable. As such, because the trial court found no such clear and unmistakable waiver of Plaintiff’s statutory rights, it denied Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. On Defendant’s appeal, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. On appeal Defendant urged the Court of Appeal to hold that the clear and unmistakable standard was limited to cases where a union employee seeks to pursue statutory discrimination claims in a judicial form, but for all other claims like Plaintiff’s wage & hour claim, the CBA was subject to the usual liberal construction in favor of arbitration. The Court of Appeal was unpersuaded by Defendant’s argument. Instead, it followed the approach taken by California case law authorities requiring a CBA to include a clear and unmistakable agreement to waive right to enforce other statutory prohibitions, including the wage & hour claims, which Plaintiff sought to enforce in her lawsuit in a judicial forum. Looking to the CBA at issue, the Court of Appeal concluded that it contained no express contractual commitment to comply with any particular statute, much less the statutes that Plaintiff invoked in her lawsuit. Noting that Defendant failed to point to anything in the CBA that obliged Defendant to comply with a particular California or federal statute, the Court of Appeal held that the CBA did not contain a clear and unmistakable waiver of her right to pursue statutory claims against Defendant in a judicial forum. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal determined that the trial court correctly denied Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and it affirmed the trial court’s order.