1. Burden Of Proof 3rd Edition Crosman 10771
2. Burden Of Proof 3rd Edition Crosman 1077 Review
3. Burden Of Proof 3rd Edition Crosman 1077 2

Introduction and Overview Since the turn of the century, there has been a huge increase in the number of class action lawsuits filed in state courts alleging violations of California’s overtime laws or other Labor Code statutes and wage and hour regulations. Currently, several such class actions are filed every day in California. How to install sun visor bushings. The reasons for this trend are essentially fourfold.

First, California’s wage and hour law differs from federal law in subtle yet important ways. This means that an employer might be compliant with federal law, but not California law. Second, California procedural rules make it easier to file a class action or collective action. In contrast, the federal Fair Labor Standards Act requires an “opt-in” procedure that tends to restrict the size of classes as compared to the “opt-out” class action procedure used in California.

Augustine The Confessions Trans Maria Boulding Hyde Park Ny New City Press 2001 Mass Market Paperback Edition 115.Gregg Quick Filing Practice. 272.The Norton Anthology American Literature 3rd Edition 273.Read Unlimited Books. 341.Singapore Standard Electrical Code Cp5 Free 342.Lift Wiring Diagram. Rent, buy, or sell Burden of Proof: An Introduction to Argumentation and Guide to Parliamentary Debate, by Crossman, 3rd Edition - ISBN 915 - Orders over $49 ship for free! - Bookbyte We're hiring!

Third, California’s unfair competition law allows claimants to borrow violations of other laws and extend the statute of limitations to four years, which tends to make class actions more lucrative. Fourth, many California Labor Code provisions allow for the recovery of attorney’s fees to a prevailing plaintiff, creating additional incentives to pursue litigation.

California Labor Code class actions come in various shapes and sizes. Essentially, however, any Labor Code violation that can be tied to a corporate policy could support a class action. For that reason, plaintiffs in California continue to come up with new theories as to how wage and hour violations may support class litigation. This publication reviews the most commonly filed wage and hour and Labor Code class claims and the development of the law over the last several years.

Burden Of Proof 3rd Edition Crosman 10771

It does not, however, attempt to provide a comprehensive overview of California wage and hour law. Sections II through X of this paper address some of the most common types of class claims in California, such as claims for exempt classification, meal period violations, and denial of expense reimbursement. Sections XI and XII then address some peculiar provisions in California law that tend to expand potential damages recoverable in California class actions such as the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act, and the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”). Lastly, Sections XIII through XVIII address various aspects of class action procedure in California—the rules governing class certification, class discovery, class settlement, class arbitration, and individual liability.

Common Exempt Misclassification Claims The first wave of class claims filed against large California employers challenged the exempt status of groups of employees holding the same job. In short, the plaintiffs’ counsel argued that the employer had engaged in a common practice of misclassifying a group of employees as exempt from overtime, thus entitling all employees in the group to back overtime pay, interest, and Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com Litigating California Wage & Hour Class Actions (14th Edition) 6 associated statutory penalties. 1 The following discussion addresses some of the issues that have arisen concerning the misclassification of employees under the various available exemptions. Overview of State Overtime Law Before January 1, 2000, the California Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) was the body authorized by statute to set overtime requirements. It acted in a quasi-legislative capacity, promulgating a series of “Wage Orders” that set rules for wages, hours, and working conditions that differed slightly from one industry to another.

The IWC eliminated daily overtime from the Wage Orders in 1997. 2 In response, in 1998 the Legislature passed AB 60 which amended the Labor Code to provide for daily overtime and to enshrine various employee protections into the Labor Code so that they could not be altered by the IWC. 3 The Wage Orders are still in effect, but the IWC is precluded from promulgating rules within the Wage Orders that are inconsistent with the Labor Code itself. 4 Under Labor Code Section 510, employees are entitled to one and one-half times their regular rate when they work more than eight hours in a single day, more than forty hours in a workweek, or during the first eight hours of the seventh straight day of a single workweek. 5 Employees are entitled to double time when they work more than twelve hours in a single day or beyond the eighth hour of the seventh straight day of a single workweek.

These rules apply to non-exempt employees in California in every industry. 6 These rules 1 Punitive damages are not recoverable when liability is premised solely on Labor Code wage and hour violations. Premier Golf Properties, 168 Cal. 4th 1243, 1252 (2008).

Overnite Transp. Co., 105 Cal. 4th 171, 176 (2003). 3 See, e.g., Lab. Code § 510 (daily overtime requirement) and Lab. Code § 226.7 (meal and rest period requirements).

Note that Labor Code section 510 does not apply to employees covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement if “the agreement expressly provides for the wages, hours of work, and working conditions of the employees” and “provides premium wage rates for all overtime hours worked and a regular hourly rate of pay for those employees of not less than 30 percent more than the state minimum wage.” Lab. Code § 514; see also Vranish v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 166 Cal. 3d 845 (2014) (affirming trial court ruling that employer: (1) properly paid overtime under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement; and (2) was exempted from Labor Code section 510 pursuant to Labor Code section 514). 4 Collins, 105 Cal.

4th at 178-80 (Wage Orders and Labor Code should be read together to understand scope of wage and hour regulation of California employees). 5 Note that employers may assign employees to work schedules that differ from company’s designated workweek/workday and base overtime calculations on the designated workweek/workday as long as the schedule is not established for the purpose of evading lawful overtime requirements. Metson Marine, 194 Cal.App. 4th 361 (2011).

6 However, employees and employers may specifically agree in advance to a “specific mutual wage agreement” that provides a guaranteed salary covering both base hours and a specific number of overtime hours. The required elements of such an agreement are: “(1) the days that employee would work each week; (2) the number of hours employee would work each day; (3) that employee would be paid a guaranteed salary of a specific amount; (4) that employee was told the basic hourly rate upon which his salary was based; (5) that employee was told his salary covered both his regular and overtime hours; and (6) the agreement must have been reached before the work was performed.” Archiega v. Dolores Press, Inc., 192 Cal. 4th 567, 571 (2011) quoting Ghory v. Al-Lanham, 209 Cal. 3d 1487, 1491 (1989).Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com Litigating California Wage & Hour Class Actions (14th Edition) 7 also apply to non-resident employees who perform work in California for California employers.

7 Individual employees have a private right of action for unpaid overtime. Typically, a plaintiff invokes a private right of action by alleging violation of Labor Code Section 510 or a provision of the governing IWC order. Such a claim does not depend on the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) or other federal law.

A prevailing plaintiff may recover attorney’s fees for an overtime claim, 8 but California law, unlike the FLSA, does not provide a remedy of double damages for willful overtime violations. 9 In a private action for unpaid overtime compensation under the Labor Code, the statute of limitations reaches back to three years before the date the lawsuit is filed in court. The Executive (Managerial) Exemption One issue frequently raised in misclassification class actions is that a proposed class of exempt managers—most often “working managers” in a retail establishment—do not qualify for the “executive” (aka “managerial”) exemption. The FLSA and California law contain similar executive exemptions, but California’s is more restrictive in key respects.

California requires that an “executive” employee be paid a higher level of compensation than required under the FLSA. 11 The salary must be set at a level at least twice the minimum wage, which, as of July 1, 2014, is $9.00 per hour in the State of California.

12 7 The California Supreme Court in Sullivan v. Oracle, 51 Cal. 4th 1191 (2011), held that California overtime laws apply to out-of-state employees who perform work within the state. Further, the Court held that overtime work performed by outof-state employees within California can serve as the basis for a claim under California’s unfair competition law.

Code § 17200 (“UCL”). However, the Court also held that FLSA violations as to out-of-state employees outside California cannot serve as the basis for a California UCL claim. Although the Sullivan court explicitly limited its decision to “the circumstances of this case,” the plaintiff’s bar may argue its reasoning suggests that similar conclusions may result for non-California-based employers.

The Sullivan court declined to opine on the different burdens that a non-California-based employer may face in applying California overtime laws to nonresident employees working in California, but the plaintiff’s bar will undoubtedly seek to obtain judicial rulings that the California Supreme Court’s conflict of laws analysis suggests no reason for why a different conclusion would result for non-California-based employers. 8 The California Court of Appeal has held that only the prevailing employee, and not the prevailing employer, may recover attorney’s fees in an action for overtime pay or for unpaid minimum wages. Superior Court, 79 Cal. 4th 1420 (2000).

9 But see Lab. Code § 1194.2 (providing double damages for minimum wage violations). 10 As explained infra, this statute of limitations can be extended to four years through the pleading of a companion claim under the state Unfair Competition Law, Bus.

Code § 17200, et seq. 11 The revised FLSA regulations that went into effect on August 23, 2004, increased the minimum salary from $250 per week to $455 per week. Even under this revised minimum, California’s minimum remains higher than the FLSA’s minimum. 12 The minimum wage in California was $8.00 per hour prior to July 1, 2014, and will increase to $10,00 per hour on January 1, 2016. The federal minimum wage is currently $7.25; employees working within California are generally subject to the higher state minimum wage.Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com Litigating California Wage & Hour Class Actions (14th Edition) 8 Accordingly, to qualify for the exemption, a manager must now be paid $37,480 per year. A manager who does not meet the threshold compensation test is automatically disqualified from the exemption. The other requirements are that the manager (1) must have the power to hire and fire, or make recommendations on those topics that are given particular weight; (2) must supervise at least two full-time equivalent positions; (3) must “primarily” be engaged in managerial duties; and (4) must “customarily and regularly” exercise discretion and independent judgment.

13 Most litigation in California arises out of element (3) above, because the California Supreme Court in Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co. 14 held that an employee meets element (3) only when the employee spends more than half of the work time on exempt duties. By contrast, under the FLSA’s executive exemption, the employer need only establish that management is the employee’s “primary duty,” which focuses on the relative importance of the duty rather than just the amount of time devoted to the duty. 15 Aside from its emphasis on the percentage of work time devoted to exempt duties, there has been little California case law explaining precisely which duties qualify as exempt “managerial work.” Since July of 2000, however, the Wage Order has expressly incorporated by reference the then-existing FLSA regulations defining “managerial” duties. 16 Accordingly, federal authority construing those specific regulations is highly relevant in interpreting the California executive exemption. 17 Some examples of exempt work set forth in the federal regulation are interviewing, selecting and training employees, setting and adjusting pay rates and work hours, directing 13 See IWC Wage Order 1-2001(1)(A)(1); Nordquist v.

McGraw-Hill Broad. 4th 555, 573 (1995) (“‘Discretion and independent judgment’ within the meaning of IWC Order No.

11-80 involves the comparison of possible courses of conduct, and acting after considering various possibilities. It implies that the employee has the power to make an independent choice free from immediate supervision and with respect to matters of significance.

meaning matters of substantial significance to the policies or general operations of the business of the employer.”). 4th 785 (1999). At 797; see also Baldwin v.

Burden Of Proof 3rd Edition Crosman 1077 Review

Trailer Inns, Inc., 266 F.3d 1104, 1113-16 (9th Cir. 2001) (although store managers spent less than one-half their time on duties that met the federal executive exemption, they still qualified as exempt because management was found to be their “primary” or most important duty). 16 See Whiteway v. FedEx Kinko’s Office & Print Servs., Inc., 2007 U.S. LEXIS 61239; 12 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 1503 (N.D. 21, 2007) (citing IWC Wage Order 7-2001 § (1)(A)(1)(e) and noting that it incorporates the federal definition of management as set forth in 29 C.F.R.

17 See Whiteway, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 61239, at.22 (relying on federal cases construing 29 C.F.R. § 541.202 to interpret California executive exemption); see also Bldg. Material & Constr. Teamsters Union v.

Burden Of Proof 3rd Edition Crosman 1077 2

Farrell, 41 Cal. 3d 651, 658 (1986) (“federal decisions have frequently guided our interpretation of state labor provisions the language of which parallels that of federal statutes”); Alcala v.

Western Agric. Enters., 182 Cal.