18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 229 was not required to provide for meal and rest breaks because the applicable California Labor Code provisions were preempted by the Federal Aviation Act (“FAA”), but the Ninth Circuit disagreed on the grounds that meal and rest breaks lacked the direct connection to aviation safety needed for FAA preemption. The Ninth Circuit further held that the California Labor Code’s provisions governing wage statements and waiting time penalties applied here as well since Plaintiffs were based in California and performed more work in California than in any other state. For these reasons, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the District Court’s summary judgment order. Caul, et al. v. Petco Animal Supplies, Inc. , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184652 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2021). Plaintiff, a guest experience specialist, filed a class action alleging that Defendant failed to pay manual workers weekly instead of bi-weekly and failed to provide accurate wage statements in violation of the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), which the Court granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff spent at least a quarter of her time performing manual labor, including stocking shelves, cleaning floors, and helping customers carry and bag items. Plaintiff contended that pursuant to § 191(1)(a) of the NYLL, Plaintiff was entitled to weekly pay. Defendant argued that a worker had no cause of action under § 191 when the employer paid the worker’s wages in full but late. Section 191(1)(a) states that "[a] manual worker shall be paid weekly and not later than seven calendar days after the end of the week in which the wages are earned" unless the Commissioner of the New York Department of Labor has "authorized" the employer to pay the worker less frequently. Id . at *4. The Court held that Plaintiff sufficiently stated a claim for a violation of § 19, which expressly provided a private right of action to enforce the late payment of full wages. Accordingly, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the § 19 claim for timely wage payment. Plaintiff also alleged that Defendant provided improper wage statements under § 195(3) of the NYLL. Section § 195(3) requires an employer to "furnish each employee with a statement with every payment of wages," which must include "the dates of work covered by that payment of wages:” the "name of [the] employee;” the name, address, and phone number of the employer; the "rate or rates of pay and basis thereof:” gross wages; deductions; any allowances; and net wages. Id. at *11. Plaintiff contended that Defendant’s wage statements violated the NYLL because they failed to specify the number of hours worked per week. The Court concluded that by the plain language of the statute, there was no requirement to have a tally of total hours worked per week. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim for improper wage statements. For these reasons, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Comin, et al. v. IBM, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24881 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2021). Plaintiff, a sales representative, filed a class action alleging that Defendant, his former employer, had a practice of failing to provide sales representatives with a written contract about commissions in violation of § 2751 of the California Labor Code (“CLC”) and the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The Court granted the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Labor Code claim, and the denied the motion to dismiss the UCL claim. Plaintiffs asserted that Defendant paid commissions pursuant to its "Incentive Plan Letter" (IPL), which outlined sales targets and the rate at which the representative would earn commissions. Id. at *3. The IPLs had disclaimers stating that they were "not an express or implied contract," or a promise to pay commissions. Id. Plaintiff alleged there were three occasions when Defendant did not pay him the full amount of the commissions he was owed for closing large deals and that Defendant engaged in a "bait and switch" scheme in which it incentivized sales reps with the promise of potentially large commissions under the IPLs, only to renege and deny that that the IPL was an enforceable contract. Id . at *4. First, the Court explained that § 2751 stated in pertinent part that employers must provide that employees paid with commissions receive a written contract that sets forth "the method by which the commissions shall be computed and paid." Id . The Court noted that the California Legislature revised § 2751 to apply to all employers, not just those outside California, in response to a decision holding that the original text unconstitutionally discriminated against out-of-state employers. Id. at *6. Accordingly, the Court determined that § 2751 did not provide for an employee’s right to sue for a breach of the written contract requirement. The Court therefore denied Plaintiff’s CLC claim. In addition, the Court observed that the UCL prohibited any "unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice." Id . To state a UCL claim, Plaintiff must allege facts plausibly showing a "causal connection" between Defendant’s unfair or illegal practices and an economic injury that he suffered. Id . The Court ruled that Plaintiff advanced the requisite allegations to state a viable claim pursuant to the UCL. The Court reasoned that Plaintiff allege that Defendant expressly disclaimed that the IPLs were written contracts, and that Defendant did