18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

402 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition Constitution. Finally, Defendant argued that it complied with California law because the CBAs’ provisions provide a second meal beak for employees who worked over 10 hours. The trial court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the sole ground that the action was preempted by the RLA because adjudicating Plaintiff’s claim would require the trial court to interpret the parties’ CBA. On Plaintiff’s appeal, the California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in finding that the CBA warranted preemption in this case. The Court of Appeal reasoned that preemption under the RLA was narrowly construed under both California and U.S. Supreme Court case law precedent and was required only if the state law claim cannot be resolved without interpreting that agreement. As to his PAGA claim, Plaintiff was seeking only penalties on behalf of the state, not unpaid wages or other damages that might implicate the terms of Defendant’s collective bargaining agreement. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal determined that interpretation of the CBA was unnecessary to determine whether Defendant violated the CLC. In its ruling, the Court of Appeal opined that the PAGA serves an important supplementary role as an enforcement tool under the CLC to augment the limited enforcement capabilities of the state, and therefore the preemption of employment standards within the traditional police power of the state should not be lightly inferred. For these reasons, the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of the trial court. Nalick, et al. v. Seagate Technology LLC, Case No. 158237 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. March 25, 2021). Plaintiff filed a class action alleging that Defendant’s computer hard drives contained a latent defect that caused them to fail at high rates that resulted in data losses. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant’s misrepresentations and omissions about the drives’ reliability and failure rates violated various California laws, including the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), the False Advertising Law, and the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Defendant moved for summary adjudication. The trial court initially denied the motion in its entirety, concluding that operative law authorized Plaintiff to pursue the claims at issue, and triable issues of material fact existed as to the threshold of materiality for a hard drive’s annual failure rate (“AFR”) and Defendant’s knowledge of such AFRs. The trial court subsequently reconsidered and reversed its prior decision. The trial court affirmed its prior conclusion that pre-warranty CLRA and UCL class claims could be pursued based on Defendant’s alleged failure to disclose high AFRs for its hard drives. However, it concluded on reconsideration that the evidence only indicated a 3% AFR would be material to consumers, and Plaintiff failed to demonstrate Defendant had exclusive knowledge of such an AFR in connection with its hard drives. On appeal to the California Court of Appeal, Plaintiff argued that the trial court improperly concluded that Defendant’s duty to disclose did not apply to post-warranty claims under the CLRA and the UCL. Plaintiff further contended that the record demonstrated that AFRs as low as 1% were material, and Defendant had knowledge of significantly higher AFRs for its drives. The Court of Appeal agreed with Plaintiff’s arguments and reversed the trial court’s order granting summary adjudication in favor of Defendant. The Court of Appeal held that Plaintiff’s pre-warranty CLRA and UCL class claims could be pursued based on Defendant’s alleged failure to disclose high AFRs for its hard drives. In so ruling, the Court of Appeal concluded that the omission claims were viable provided they related to the product’s central functionality. Plaintiff alleged that the defect was the premature failure of the hard drives, which the Court of Appeal held went to the heart of the drive’s functionality. Additionally, the Court of Appeal opined that Plaintiff had sufficiently raised a triable issue as to whether AFRs over 1% were material to a reasonable consumer, and Defendant’s own evidence raised a triable issue as to whether it had knowledge of AFRs above 1%. For these reasons, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s grant of summary adjudication in favor of Defendant. National Retail Federation, et al. v. California Department Of Industrial Relations, 2021 WL 800890 (Cal. Super. Ct. Feb. 25, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of business organizations representing the retail and agriculture industries, filed two separate class actions seeking injunctive relief barring the enforcement of Defendants’ Emergency Temporary Standard Regulations (“ETS Regulations”). In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Defendant California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (“the Board”) implemented ETS Regulations through the Board’s emergency rulemaking process. The Regulations created several new safety measures that California businesses were required to take, such as establishing COVID-19 prevention programs, providing no-cost COVID-19 testing to potentially exposed employees, and implementing heightened health and safety protocols. According to Plaintiffs, Defendants improperly adopted the ETS Regulations on an emergency basis, lacked authority to adopt such Regulations, and violated Plaintiffs’ due process rights in doing so. Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction prohibiting the enforcement of Defendants’ ETS Regulations,