Archive for category: News Items

January 2020 started off with a bang for Altshuler Berzon LLP partner Michael Rubin, who had back-to-back arguments in the Ninth Circuit on January 6 and 8, 2020 in San Francisco.

The first case up was Canela v. Costco, a case of first impression under the federal Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) and California’s Labor Code Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) – a state statute that provides a private right of action to employees in California, authorizing them to sue as agents of the State Labor and Workforce Development Agency for civil penalties against an employer that allegedly violated plaintiff’s and other aggrieved employees’ rights under the California Labor Code.  The appeal raised several questions, including whether a PAGA representative action filed in state court can ever be removed to federal court under CAFA, and whether, if a PAGA claim is litigated in federal court, the plaintiff must satisfy all requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure before being permitted to seek civil penalties based on violations committed against other aggrieved employees.

Two days later, in the same courtroom of the James R. Browning Court of Appeals building and before two of the same judges, Rubin argued Johnson v. Serenity Transportation, a Rule 23(f) appeal concerning the construction and application of California Labor Code §2810.3.  That statute, which the California Legislature enacted to overcome the difficulties faced by many workers under existing “joint-employer” liability standards, imposes strict liability on “client employers” for Labor Code wage violations committed by those companies’ “labor contractors.”  In Serenity Transportation, the ultimate issue – another question of first impression – is whether Section 2810.3 applies in circumstances where the labor contractor provides workers to more than one client employer at the same time – in this case, by requiring those workers to be on-call, or “engaged to wait,” while awaiting dispatch to one of the labor contractor’s clients.  Because the appeal arose in the context of a district court’s denial of class certification (based on the court’s legal conclusion that Section 2810.3 does not apply in that situation), a threshold issue in the appeal is whether, or under what circumstances, a district court has authority to deny certification based upon a legal determination that plaintiffs’ claim lacks merit – even if that merits question is common to the class as a whole.

Both cases are currently under submission by the Ninth Circuit.

On January 6, 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a published opinion affirmed a $55 million California minimum wage judgment in favor of a class of Wal-Mart, Inc.’s California truck drivers, in Ridgeway v. WalMart, Inc., Ninth Cir. Nos. 17-15983, 17-16142.  Following a 16-day trial in 2016, a jury found that Wal-Mart failed to pay minimum wages required by California law to its California-based truck drivers for time they spent engaged in pre- and post-trip inspections, rest breaks, and during mandatory “layover” periods, during which Wal-Mart exercised control over the drivers by prohibiting them from returning home without management permission.  The 11-year class period covered the time from October 2004 to October 2015. 

After Wal-Mart appealed, Altshuler Berzon LLP was brought in by the class and trial counsel to defend the verdict on appeal.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment against Wal-Mart in its entirety, rejecting Wal-Mart’s numerous arguments, which challenged the trial court’s jurisdiction, partial summary judgment and class certification decisions, and jury instructions, and raised other arguments under California and federal law.

You can read the Court’s decision here.

The Daily Journal recognized Altshuler Berzon LLP as one of the top boutique firms in California.  The Journal highlighted the firm’s work on ground-breaking cases such as the California Supreme Court’s Dynamex decision protecting workers misclassified as independent contractors, litigation in Florida to protect voting rights, and cases seeking to hold fossil fuel companies responsible for climate change-related harms to public infrastructure.

You can find a PDF of the Daily Journal article here.

On May 17, 2019, the Alameda County Superior Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction in TWU Local 556, et al. v. Southwest Airlines Co., Case No. RG-18933251, requiring Southwest Airlines Co. to permit its California-based flight attendants to use their accrued sick leave to care for ill family members, in accordance with the “kin care” provisions of California Labor Code §233 and sick leave ordinances in Oakland and Los Angeles.  Altshuler Berzon LLP is representing the plaintiffs in the case and brought the preliminary injunction motion.

In granting the motion, the Court rejected Southwest’s affirmative defenses, which sought to preclude application of California and local labor protections laws to its flight attendants, who often travel outside the state in the course of a work day.  The Court found that Southwest’s California-based flight attendants who start and end all trips in California, and perform more work in California than in any other state, are likely entitled to the protections of California law.

As a result of the preliminary injunction, Southwest can no longer deny its flight attendants their “kin care” rights or discipline them for exercising those rights.  You can read the Court’s order here.

On May 10, 2019, the federal court for the Northern District of Florida issued a preliminary injunction under Section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act requiring Florida’s Secretary of State to direct the Supervisors of Elections in 32 Florida counties to provide Spanish-language election assistance—including Spanish-language or bilingual official ballots, a Spanish-language hotline, and Spanish translations of all official, election materials—for elections beginning with Florida’s March 2020 presidential primary.

This order expands on the preliminary relief the Court previously granted in this case.  In granting broader relief, the Court explained:  “This case is about the fundamental right to cast an effective ballot.  Voters educated in Puerto Rico bring this suit to enforce the plain provisions of the Voting Rights Act’s Section 4(e).  This straightforward law has been on the books for 54 years. In this action, this Court is ensuring compliance with Congress’s clear directives.”

The name of the case is Marta Rivera Madera, et al., v. Laurel M. Lee, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-152-MW/GRJ (N.D. Fla.).  Altshuler Berzon LLP, along with co-counsel from Demos, LatinoJustice, and SEIU, are representing Plaintiffs Marta Rivera Madera, Faith in Florida, Hispanic Federation, Mi Familia Vota, UnidosUS, and Vamos4PR in the case.

You can read the Court’s order here.

You can read more about the case here.