Given the prevalence of wage-hour class actions filed against California employers, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals from time to time asks the California Supreme Court to clarify certain California wage-hour laws. Last week, the Ninth Circuit asked again in Cole v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc., seeking clarification on the following two questions:
Our colleague Michael Kun, attorney at Epstein Becker Green, has a post on the Wage & Hour Defense Blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the hospitality industry: “Clarification of California’s Obscure ‘Suitable Seating’ Wage Rule Likely to Lead to More Employers Providing Seats – and to More Class Actions Against Those Who Don’t.”
We have written previously about California’s obscure wage rule pertaining to “suitable seating,” which requires that some employers provide some employees with “suitable seating” in some circumstances if the “nature of the work reasonably permits it” – and exposes employers to significant penalties if they do not do so.
Faced with a dearth of guidance on the obscure rule and with a wave of class actions following the discovery of the rule by the plaintiffs’ bar, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals threw up its hands last year and asked the California Supreme Court to answer a few questions relating to the law.
by Michael S. Kun
Yesterday, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Coito v. Superior Court, addressing the issue of whether a party in litigation could rely upon the work product doctrine to withhold witness statements obtained by its attorneys or the identities of persons who had given such statements.
In short, while parties in California have long relied upon dicta in the Court of Appeal decision known as Nacht v. Lewis for the proposition that such information is protected from disclosure by the work product doctrine, case-by-case determinations will now be required to determine whether a party must provide such information to its opponent in discovery in California state court cases.
By: Michael Kun
This morning, the California Supreme Court has just issued its long-awaited decision in the Brinker case regarding meal and period requirements. It is largely, but not entirely, a victory for employers. A copy of the decision is here.
A few highlights of the decision:
On rest periods, the Court confirmed the certification of a rest period class because Brinker’s written policy did not comply with the law. In so doing, it clarified when employees are entitled to rest periods:
By Michael Kun and Betsy Johnson
In a much-anticipated decision, the California Supreme Court has expanded the scope of California’s complex wage-hour laws to non-resident employees who perform work in California. While the decision leaves more than a few questions unanswered, it will require a great many employers to review their overtime and other payroll practices. Perhaps just as importantly, it will likely open the door to lawsuits, including class actions, regarding prior overtime and payroll practices. This issue is of particular importance to hospitality employers, who often have employees travel to other states to help open new facilities or provide other services.