Ninth Circuit Affirms $95 Million Settlement of California Meal Break Claims Against Wells Fargo

/in /by

Rejects Objectors’ Challenge in Expedited Appellate Proceedings

Oct. 12, 2022 – The Ninth Circuit today affirmed the district court’s approval of a groundbreaking $95 million settlement in Ibarra v. Wells Fargo, which involved the claims of nearly 5,000 Wells Fargo home mortgage consultants who alleged that the Bank had used an unlawful formula for calculating legally mandated premium pay for missed rest breaks, basing those payments exclusively on the plaintiffs’ base hourly rates and ignoring the commissions that were the principal basis for their compensation.

Altshuler Berzon LLP was lead counsel on appeal and assisted trial counsel Joshua Hafner and Paul Stevens throughout much of the litigation, including by participating as amicus in a related case before the California Court of Appeal and later, before the California Supreme Court, Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC, 489 P.3d 1166 (Cal. 2021), which established the underlying principle that all categories of compensation must be included in calculating rest break violation penalties under California Labor Code §226.7.

After overcoming the objector’s challenges to the class action settlement in Ibarra (and two related cases), plaintiffs succeeded again in the Ninth Circuit, first by obtaining an expedited briefing schedule (to avoid further delay in distributing the substantial payments available to class members under the settlement) and then by winning the appeal based on the briefs, in an unpublished decision issued without the need for oral argument. The affected Wells Fargo employees will be receiving their settlement checks before the end of 2022.

California Supreme Court Grants Review in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

/in /by

Limits Review to “PAGA Standing” Issue Addressed by U.S. Supreme Court in Viking River Cruises

August 1, 2022 – The California Supreme Court unanimously granted review in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. on July 20 2022 and, on August 1, 2022, limited that review to a single issue: whether a plaintiff seeking civil penalties on behalf of the State under California’s Labor Code Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) loses standing to pursue such penalties based on Labor Code violations committed against other aggrieved employees if she has been compelled to “individual” arbitration of her clam for PAGA penalties based on violations committed against herself.

This is an important issue affecting millions of Californians because the U.S. Supreme Court in mid-June 2022 – reaching out at the end of its decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 142 S.Ct. 1906 (2022), to decide an issue of state law that was neither briefed nor argued – held that under California law, a PAGA plaintiff does lose standing under those circumstances.

Altshuler Berzon LLP was co-lead counsel in the Supreme Court for plaintiff Angie Moriana and is lead counsel for plaintiff Erik Adolph in the California Supreme Court.

Adolph’s argument to the California Supreme Court starts with Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s concurrence in Viking River, which stated that she was joining the five-member majority with the understanding that if the Court’s characterization of California standing law was mistaken, the California state courts were fully capable of correcting that mistake. Adolph’s briefs to the California Supreme Court will explain why the Viking River majority was mistaken about California law, and why the text, purposes, and legislative history of PAGA, which the California Supreme Court already construed on a closely related issue of standing in Kim v. Reins International California, Inc., 9 Cal.5th 73 (2020), establish that a PAGA plaintiff does not lose standing if required, as a matter of Federal Arbitration Act preemption, to split her representative claims for PAGA penalties between a arbitral and a judicial forum.

Briefing in Adolph is expected to be completed by late 2022.

Court Grants Preliminary Approval to Settlement of Pay Equity Class Action Against Google Providing $118 Million in Class Monetary Relief and Comprehensive Injunctive Relief

/in /by

On July 25, 2022, San Francisco Superior Judge Andrew YS Cheng granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the pay equity class action against Google in Ellis v. Google LLC, No. CGC-17-561299.  Under the settlement, Google will pay $118 million and will modify its leveling and pay equity practices.  The settlement covers approximately 16,500 female employees in 236 job titles (“covered positions”) in California since September 14, 2013.

In addition to the $118 million in monetary relief, the settlement provides that an independent third party expert will analyze Google’s leveling-at-hire practices and that an independent labor economist will review Google’s pay equity studies.  The post-settlement work will be supervised by an external Settlement Monitor over the next three years.  The lawsuit challenged Google’s pay and leveling processes, and Plaintiffs believe these programs will help ensure that women are not paid less than their male counterparts who perform substantially similar work, and that Google’s challenged leveling practices are equitable.

Class Counsel:  Altshuler Berzon LLP and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP are serving as Class Counsel.

Plaintiffs:  The Named Plaintiffs are Kelly Ellis, Holly Pease, Kelli Wisuri, and Heidi Lamar.  All of the Plaintiffs are women who worked for Google in California in a covered position since September 14, 2013.  Their backgrounds:

Plaintiff Kelly Ellis worked as a Software Engineer at Google’s Mountain View office for approximately four years.

Plaintiff Holly Pease worked for Google for approximately 10.5 years, in both Mountain View and Sunnyvale, holding numerous technical leadership roles, including: Manager, Corporate Network Engineering; Manager, Business Systems Integration; Manager, Corporate Data Warehouse/Reporting Team; and Senior Manager, Business Systems Integration.

Plaintiff Kelli Wisuri worked for Google for approximately 2.5 years in its Mountain View office, as an Enterprise Operations Coordinator, Enterprise Sales Operations Associate, and Google Brand Evangelist, Executive Communications Program (aka Sales Solutions Senior Associate).

Plaintiff Heidi Lamar worked as a Preschool Teacher and Infant/Toddler Teacher at Google’s Children Center in Palo Alto for approximately four years.

Next Steps:  The Settlement Administrator will mail a notice describing the settlement terms to Class Members in late August.  The court has scheduled a final approval hearing for October 31, 2022.  If the court grants final settlement approval, the third-party administrator will allocate settlement amounts based on an objective formula to each qualifying class member.

Statements on the Settlement:

“As a woman who’s spent her entire career in the tech industry, I’m optimistic that the actions Google has agreed to take as part of this settlement will ensure more equity for women,” said Plaintiff Holly Pease.  “Google, since its founding, has led the tech industry.  They also have an opportunity to lead the charge to ensure inclusion and equity for women in tech.”

“Google has long been a technology leader.  We are delighted that in this Settlement Agreement and Order Google is also affirming its commitment to be a leader in ensuring pay equity and equal employment opportunity for all of their employees,” said Plaintiffs’ co-counsel Jim Finberg.

Inland Empire United and Latino Voters Challenge Riverside County’s Discriminatory Redistricting under the California FAIR MAPS Act and California Constitution

/in /by

On June 14, 2022, community advocacy organization Inland Empire United and six Latino Riverside County voters filed suit against Riverside County, its Board of Supervisors, and its Registrar of Voters challenging the County’s 2021 Board of Supervisors redistricting plan under the California FAIR MAPS Act and California Constitution.  Latinos make up nearly half of all residents of Riverside County and roughly two-fifths of the voting population.  Despite considerable growth in the Latino population in the last few decades, there has only been one Latino supervisor on the County’s Board in its 129-year history.  The lawsuit alleges that the County’s 2021 redistricting plan, which includes only a single district with a majority Latino citizen voting age population, unlawfully dilutes the votes of Latino residents, “cracking” Latino communities of interest and denying them equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice in supervisor elections.

Altshuler Berzon LLP represents plaintiffs Inland Empire United and four individual Riverside County voters in the lawsuit.  The ACLU of Southern California and law firm Sheppard Mullin together represent two other individual Riverside County voter plaintiffs.

The complaint is available here.  A press release issued by Inland Empire United and the ACLU of Southern California is available here.

Plaintiffs and Google Agree to $118 Million Settlement of Pay Equity Class Action

/in /by

Plaintiffs’ law firms Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP and Altshuler Berzon LLP announce today that Plaintiffs have reached an agreement with Defendant Google LLC ( “Google”), in which Google will pay $118 million to settle a class action gender discrimination lawsuit, Ellis v. Google LLC, No. CGC-17-561299, pending since 2017. The settlement covers approximately 15,500 female employees in 236 job titles (“covered positions”) in California since September 14, 2013.

In addition to monetary relief, the Settlement provides that an independent third party expert will analyze Google’s leveling-at-hire practices and that an independent labor economist will review Google’s pay equity studies.  The post-settlement work will be supervised by an external Settlement Monitor over the next three years.  The lawsuit challenged Google’s pay and leveling processes, and Plaintiffs believe these programs will help ensure that women are not paid less than their male counterparts who perform substantially similar work, and that Google’s challenged leveling practices are equitable.

Plaintiffs:  The Named Plaintiffs are Kelly Ellis, Holly Pease, Kelli Wisuri, and Heidi Lamar.  All of the Plaintiffs are women who worked for Google in California in a covered position since September 14, 2013.  Their backgrounds:

Plaintiff Kelly Ellis worked as a Software Engineer at Google’s Mountain View office for approximately four years, departing the company with the title of Senior Manager.

Plaintiff Holly Pease worked for Google for approximately 10.5 years, in both Mountain View and Sunnyvale, holding numerous technical leadership roles, including: Manager, Corporate Network Engineering; Manager, Business Systems Integration; Manager, Corporate Data Warehouse/Reporting Team; and Senior Manager, Business Systems Integration.

Plaintiff Kelli Wisuri worked for Google for approximately 2.5 years in its Mountain View office, as an Enterprise Operations Coordinator, Enterprise Sales Operations Associate, and Google Brand Evangelist, Executive Communications Program (aka Sales Solutions Senior Associate).

Plaintiff Heidi Lamar worked as a Preschool Teacher and Infant/Toddler Teacher at Google’s Children Center in Palo Alto for approximately four years.

Next Steps:  The court will set a hearing date for preliminary settlement approval, which if approved will result in the third-party administrator issuing notice to the class members.  If the court later grants final settlement approval, the third-party administrator will allocate settlement amounts based on an objective formula to each qualifying class member. More information is available at the website: https://googlegendercase.com/

Statements on the Settlement:

“As a woman who’s spent her entire career in the tech industry, I’m optimistic that the actions Google has agreed to take as part of this settlement will ensure more equity for women,” said Plaintiff Holly Pease.  “Google, since its founding, has led the tech industry.  They also have an opportunity to lead the charge to ensure inclusion and equity for women in tech.”

Plaintiffs’ co-counsel Kelly Dermody stated, “Plaintiffs believe this settlement advances gender equity at Google and will be precedent-setting for the industry.”

“Google has long been a technology leader. We are delighted that in this Settlement Agreement and Order Google is also affirming its commitment to be a leader in ensuring pay equity and equal employment opportunity for all of their employees,” said Plaintiffs’ co-counsel Jim Finberg.”

Information about Plaintiffs’ Counsel:

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP:  Lieff Cabraser is one of the country’s largest and most successful firms exclusively representing plaintiffs in civil litigation, having secured verdicts or settlements worth over $127 billion for clients nationwide. With 120 attorneys, the firm has led some of the most significant litigation of the last decade, including the VW clean diesel emissions case, which resulted in over $15 billion for VW owners (In re: Volkswagen ‘Clean Diesel’ Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2672 (Northern District of California federal court)); and the high-tech cold-calling wage conspiracy case alleging an agreement among prominent technology companies to not poach each other’s employees, which resulted in settlements totaling $435 million (In re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation, 11-cv-2509-LJK (Northern District of California federal court)).  Partner Kelly Dermody, co-lead counsel here, led High-Tech for her firm. She is currently Chair of the Section of Labor and Employment Law of the American Bar Association, and Managing Partner of the San Francisco Office of Lieff Cabraser.

Altshuler Berzon LLP:  Altshuler Berzon LLP is a San Francisco law firm that specializes in labor and employment, constitutional, environmental, civil rights, campaign and election, and impact litigation. Altshuler Berzon, LLP has been co-lead counsel in a number of civil rights class actions, including Ries v. McDonalds, 1:20 CV 0002 HYJ RSK ( W.D. Mich. 2022) (sex harassment class action); and Satchell v. Federal Express, C03-2878 SI ( ND Cal.) (race discrimination class action). Altshuler Berzon is currently serving as co-lead counsel in the Jewett v. Oracle Equal Pay Act class action in San Mateo Superior Court, 17 Civ 02669 (San Mateo Sup.) set for trial on January 23, 2023.

For more information, visit GoogleGenderCase.com.

Ninth Circuit Rejects Challenge to Home Care Provider Union Dues Deductions

/in /by

On June 8, 2022, the Ninth Circuit issued a published opinion dismissing claims that deducting voluntary union dues from the paychecks of home care providers violates the First Amendment and the Medicaid Act.  The plaintiffs in the two related cases, who were represented by anti-union advocacy groups, argued that the deduction of voluntarily authorized union dues violates the First Amendment, as well as the Medicaid Act’s “anti-reassignment provision,” which prohibits Medicaid providers from assigning their right to payment from the federal government to other entities.  If the plaintiffs had prevailed, home care workers would have been prevented from paying their union dues using the method that is most convenient and economical for them, which is the method routinely used by workers in thousands of industries across the country.

The Medicaid Act’s anti-reassignment provision was adopted decades ago in order to prevent fraud and abuse in the Medicaid program that had occurred when claims were sold and then falsely inflated by the purchasers.  It was not intended to cover routine payroll deductions like these.  But the courts did not have to reach the merits of the issue because in the two cases below, Polk v. SEIU 2015 et al. and Quirarte v. United Domestic Workers of America, AFSCME et al., the federal district courts dismissed the Medicaid Act claims as a threshold matter, holding that Congress did not intend to give providers a right of action under the anti-reassignment provision.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district courts’ rulings.

Altshuler Berzon LLP represented the unions that were the defendants in each of the cases, SEIU Local 2015 and United Domestic Workers of America, AFSCME.

You can read the Ninth Circuit’s decision here.

Federal District Court Denies Preliminary Injunction, Allowing Continued Enforcement of San Jose Unified School District’s Non-Discrimination Policy

/in /by

On June 1, 2022, Judge Haywood Gilliam of the Northern District of California denied a preliminary injunction requested by the Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA), which sought to enjoin the San Jose Unified School District’s application of its non-discrimination policy to an FCA-affiliated student group.  The District requires high school clubs that seek Associated Student Body (“ASB”) recognition to agree that all students are eligible for membership and leadership regardless of their status or beliefs.  Clubs that don’t obtain ASB recognition may still meet on campus but do not receive the benefits of recognition such as a faculty advisor and ASB account.

The FCA at one District high school had its recognition revoked when the District learned that students seeking leadership positions were required to sign a pledge that, among other things, affirms that they oppose same sex relationships and will conduct themselves in accordance with that belief.  The FCA sued and later sought a preliminary injunction, asserting that the District’s action violated the group’s constitutional rights to the free exercise of religion, speech, and expressive association, as well as parallel statutory rights.

Judge Gilliam denied the preliminary injunction, holding that the FCA plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed in either their facial challenge to the District’s policy or on a theory of selective enforcement.  A motion to dismiss some of the plaintiffs and claims remains pending.  Along with Dannis Woliver Kelley and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Altshuler Berzon LLP represents defendant school district officials, a high school principal, and a high school teacher in the case.

The federal district court’s opinion can be found here.

Stanford and Packard Nurses, Represented by Altshuler Berzon LLP, Win New Industry-Leading Contracts After One-Week Strike

/in /by

May 3, 2022 – On Sunday, May 1, an overwhelming majority of the approximately 5,000 Nurses at Stanford Health Care and Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford represented by the Committee for Recognition of Nursing Achievement (CRONA) voted to ratify new collective bargaining agreements. The new labor contracts include improvements in every priority area identified by the union, including: new protections that require staffing based on patient acuity, industry leading wages (17% increase over the next three years), significant improvements to retiree medical benefits and mental health resources, new incentive pay for Nurses in high-acuity, hard-to-staff units, rapid responses to workplace violence incidents, and the right to schedule an additional week of vacation. The contract settlements come after the Nurses went on strike on April 25, vowing to strike until fair contracts could be reached. The Nurses were joined on the picket line by many labor allies and elected officials. Altshuler Berzon LLP served as lead negotiator for CRONA in the negotiations. You can read more about the contract settlement here, here, and here.

Stanford and Packard Nurses, Represented by Altshuler Berzon LLP, Go On Strike in Collective Bargaining Dispute

/in /by

April 25, 2022 – Some 5,000 nurses at Stanford Health Care and Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford went on strike on Monday morning, April 25, for better wages, benefits, and working conditions, after 93 percent voted to authorize a strike.  Contract negotiations between the hospitals’ management and the Committee for Recognition of Nursing Achievement (CRONA), the nurses’ collective bargaining representative, are ongoing.  Altshuler Berzon LLP is serving as lead negotiator for CRONA in the negotiations.  You can read more about the strike here, here, here, and here.

 

Altshuler Berzon LLP seeks fair wages for community college part-time faculty

/in /by

Altshuler Berzon LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against the Long Beach Community College District seeking to change the District’s compensation practices for part-time instructional faculty and obtain damages for minimum wages owed. The lawsuit alleges that the district’s compensation structure for part-time instructional faculty, also known as adjunct faculty, violates California minimum wage law. Part-time instructional faculty members are paid only for the time they spend teaching in the classroom, but receive no compensation for the work they perform outside the classroom in connection with teaching their classes. This outside-the-classroom time includes such work as preparing for classes, grading student tests and writing assignments, and communicating with students. The lawsuit alleges that the District knows and expects part-time instructional faculty members to perform this outside-the-classroom work, and that it is unlawful for the District to refuse to compensate part-time instructional faculty members for the many hours that they necessarily work outside the classroom to teach their classes effectively.

The lawsuit, Karen Roberts and Seija Rohkea v. Long Beach Community College District, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, seeks damages, liquidated damages, penalties, and injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of a class of at least 600 individuals.