Bradley v. Networkers International LLC reverses denial of class certification after remand following Brinker decision

The Brinker-related news is still flowing today.  While the Supreme Court was busy depublishing decisions that affirmed certification denials purportedly based on Brinker, the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division One) in Bradley v. Networkers International LLC (December 12, 2012) reversed the trial court's decision to deny class certification as to all but one cause of action (off-the-clock work).  The decision of the Court of Appeal follows an extended detour through the California Supreme Court.  The California Supreme Court granted plaintiffs' petition for review, and ordered the first Bradley decision (unpublished) held pending the high court's decision Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004 (2012). The court then remanded the first Bradley opinion to the Court "with directions to vacate its decision and to reconsider the cause in light of Brinker . . . ."

The Court took its instructions seriously.  The Court received extensive supplemental briefing on Brinker and other decisions from the parties.  The Court concluded that the trial court erred when it refused to certify every claim.

The Court carefully reviewed Brinker's approach for analyzing class claims based on policies applicable to the class:

In finding that common issues predominated on this rest break issue, the high court emphasized that "[c]laims alleging that a uniform policy consistently applied to a group of employees is in violation of the wage and hour laws are of the sort routinely, and properly, found suitable for class treatment," citing with approval three Court of Appeal decisions: Jaimez v. Daiohs USA, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1286 (Jaimez); Ghazaryan v. Diva Limousine, Ltd. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 1524 (Ghazaryan); and Bufil, supra, 162 Cal.App.4th 1193. (Brinker, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 1033.) In each of these decisions, the Court of Appeal held the trial court abused its discretion in denying class certification based on the predominance issue. (Jaimez, supra, at pp. 1299-1307; Ghazaryan, supra, at pp. 1534-1538; Bufil, supra, at pp. 1205-1206.) These courts reasoned that the plaintiffs were challenging a uniform employment policy that allegedly violated California law and thus this violation could be proved (or disproved) through common facts and law. (Jaimez, supra, at pp. 1299-1300; Ghazaryan, supra, at pp. 1536-1538; Bufil, supra, at p. 1206.) The Jaimez and Ghazaryan courts further found that common issues predominated even if the policy did not affect each employee in the same way and damages would need to be proved individually. (See Jaimez, supra, at pp. 1301, 1303-1305; Ghazaryan, supra, at p. 1536.)

Slip op., at 17-18.  (Moment of self-aggrandizement: At this point, I'm feeling pretty good about my work on Ghazaryan.)   The Court continued with a thorough analysis of the clarified standards for meal and rest period claims.  Notably, the Court highlighted the guidance provided by Justice Werdegar on the questions of whether meal period claims are categorically uncertifiable if the defendant raises as an issue the reason for the missed meal period:

Justice Werdegar stated that if an employer's records show no meal period for a given shift, a rebuttable presumption arises that the employee was not relieved of duty and no meal period was provided, shifting the burden to the employer to show the meal period was waived. (Id. at p. 1053.) Justice Werdegar further stated that "[w]hile individual issues arising from an affirmative defense can in some cases support denial of certification, they pose no per se bar [citations]." (Ibid.)

Slip op., at 20.

Later in the opinion, the Court also concluded that the question of independent contractor status is generally one that turns on common issues:

Under both the Borello and Martinez standards, the evidence relevant to the factual question whether the class members were employees or independent contractors is common among all class members. Each of the class members signed a standard "Independent Contractor Agreement" that characterized the worker as an independent contractor; each class member was engaged in a similar occupation (skilled labor in installing or servicing cell sites); each class member was required to work full time and to be available on every working day and during assigned "on call" times; each class member was told how to prioritize each day's jobs; each class member received hourly pay, rather than pay by the job; each class member submitted timesheets to Networkers and Networkers' customers for approval; and each class member was required to use a specific set of tools on the job and to obtain those tools from Networkers. Additionally, although Networkers' standard contract stated that the workers had the right to control the manner and means of the work, including that the workers were permitted to subcontract the work, Networkers had specific time and place job requirements that all workers were required to follow, and the workers could not deviate from these rules or delegate the work.

Slip op., at 23.  The Court continued:

Networkers argued below that there would be a need for individualized proof because of differences among the workers pertaining to job titles, skill levels, pay grades, and the specific type of repair or installation work. However, with respect to the issues "likely to be presented" in the litigation (Brinker, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 1025), these distinctions are not significant. The fact that some workers engaged in repair work and others engaged in installation work, or that workers had different pay grades or worked for different lengths of times on particular days, is not central to the issue whether the workers here were employees or independent contractors under the Borello or Martinez tests. (See Martinez, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 76; Borello, supra, 48 Cal.3d at pp. 350-351.) Under the analysis, the focus is not on the particular task performed by the employee, but the global nature of the relationship between the worker and the hirer, and whether the hirer or the worker had the right to control the work. The undisputed evidence showed Networkers had consistent companywide policies applicable to all employees regarding work scheduling, payments, and work requirements. Whether those policies created an employer-employee relationship, as opposed to an independent contractor relationship, is not before us. The critical fact is that the evidence likely to be relied upon by the parties would be largely uniform throughout the class.

Slip op., at 24-25.  Unequivocal.  Seems like that IC pendulum is swinging back towards a presumption that IC classification is customarily a question suitable for certification.

The Court then returned to the specific claims in the case before it, applying Brinker's standards to the claims and trial court record.  Rather than wade through that discussion, I will offer this observation.  The employer chose to classify installers and repair techs as independent contractors.  When it made that choice, it also chose not to provide meal periods and authorize rest breaks.  It had no policy for them.  Based on Brinker, the Court concluded that this arrangement raised common questions and let the employer live with the consequences of its choice.

And, while the Court distinguished Lamps Plus and Chipotle, it need not have worried about them; they were depublished today.

Supreme Court depublishes Hernandez v. Chipotle and Lamps Plus

After a long dry spell, we finally have a busier day for class action news.  And it all relates to Brinker!  I've missed you, Brinker news!  As part of its weekly conference, the California Supreme Court depublished the post-Brinker appellate court decision in Lamps Plus Overtime Cases and Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill.  It appears as though the California Supreme Court is not entirely supportive of the analysis supplied by the Second Appellate District, Division Eight, as it applied the Supreme Court's guidance in Brinker.

Second Appellate District concludes that Gentry remains good law, despite Concepcion

While it may not last much longer than it takes the ink to dry on the opinion, the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division One), in Franco v. Arakenian Enterprises, Inc. (November 26, 2012) considered a significant question: "The question on appeal is whether Gentry was overruled by Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp. (2010) 559 U.S. ___ [130 S.Ct. 1758] (Stolt-Nielsen) and AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. ___ [131 S.Ct. 1740] (Concepcion)."  Slip op., at 3.  Summarizing a 65-page opinion, the Court said:

We conclude that Gentry remains good law because, as required by Concepcion, it does not establish a categorical rule against class action waivers but, instead, sets forth several factors to be applied on a case-by-case basis to determine whether a class action waiver precludes employees from vindicating their statutory rights. And, as required by Stolt-Nielsen, when a class action waiver is unenforceable under Gentry, the plaintiff's claims must be adjudicated in court, where the plaintiff may file a putative class action. Accordingly, we affirm.

Slip op., at 3.

The decision follows an earlier opinion in the matter, Franco v. Athens Disposal Co., Inc., 171 Cal. App. 4th 1277 (2009) (Franco I).  That procedural and factual history is extensive, and I won't summarize it.  The opinion also contains a footnote indicating that it invited comment on D.R. Horton, but because Franco did not respond to the request, the Court declined to address the impact of that matter.

 The decision also has an exhaustive review of arbitration decisions in the context of statutory claims.  After that history, the Court examined the reach of the Concepcion.  An extended portion of the Court's analysis cited approvingly to a law review analysis: Gilles & Friedman, After Class: Aggregate Litigation in the Wake of AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion (2012) 79 U.Chi. L.Rev. 623.

Ultimately, after looking at the Question Presented in Concepcion, the Court concluded that, in this case, Franco lacked the means, not the incentive, to pursue his claims.  That distinction, the Court held, justified the trial court's decision to deny the petition to compel arbitration.

Then, tucked right into the end of the opinion, the Court offered a monumental observation that would have had great significance if the Court had considered D.R. Horton:

Which brings us to the subject of Concepcion's effect, if any, on PAGA claims. We have already concluded that Athens Services's arbitration agreement — the MAP — contains two unenforceable clauses: the class action waiver and the prohibition on acting as an attorney general. (See Franco I, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1297–1300, 1303; fn. 2, ante.) Those clauses operate independently of each other: One restricts Franco‘s pursuit of his rest and meal period claims while the other prohibits his recovery under the PAGA. Together, they render the MAP tainted with illegality, making it unenforceable and permitting Franco to adjudicate his claims in a judicial forum. (See Franco I, at p. 1303; fn. 2, ante.) Concepcion does not preclude a court from declaring an arbitration agreement unenforceable if the agreement is permeated by an unlawful purpose.

Slip op., at 64.  See that?!  Right there?!  This Court gets it!  If you impose a contract that violates the law (e.g., the NLRA), then the contract is unenforcable in Court on the general ground of illegality.  Any contract that violates the NLRA, not just arbitration agreements, is void and unenforceable.  How hard is this, really?  And here we finally see a Court clearly articulate the illegality defense analysis, but the Court declined to address the NLRA argument because one of the parties was too busy to answer.  Wonderful.

Of course, this case may vanish for years when it gets sucked up into the California Supreme Court's Gentry re-examination.

See's Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court provides modest confection for employers

If I tried really hard, I could probably come up with similarly dumb headlines for most posts on appellate decisions.  But it would hurt me as much as it would hurt you, so I don't.  But, getting back on track, in See's Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court (October 29, 2012), the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division One) granted a petition for a writ filed by See's Candy after the trial court granted summary adjudication in favor of the plaintiff as to four affirmative defenses asserted in the case.  The defenses related to See's Candy's practice of rounding hourly employee punch in and punch out times to the nearest tenth of an hour.

In an amended answer, See's Candy denied plaintiff's allegations and "asserted 62 affirmative defenses, including defenses based on See's Candy's claim that: (1) any unpaid amounts are de minimis; (2) the nearest-tenth rounding policy is consistent with federal and state law; and (3) the grace period policy is lawful under federal and state law."  Slip op., at 5.  Two of the defenses concerned See's Candy's claim that any unpaid wages based on off-the-clock claims or its rounding policies were "de minimis."  The "de minimis" defense was not at issue in the writ proceedings, so don't get excited.  The other two challenged defenses encompassed See's Candy's claim that its rounding policy is consistent with state and federal laws "permitting employers to use rounding for purposes of computing and paying wages and overtime" and that the nearest-tenth rounding policy did not deny plaintiffs or the class members "full and accurate compensation." Plaintiff did not move for summary adjudication on See's Candy's affirmative defense that its grace period policy is "lawful under both federal and California law."

Plaintiff argued that there is no California statutory or case authority allowing See's Candy to use a rounding policy, and its policy violates section 204, which generally requires an employer to pay an employee "All wages" every two weeks, and section 510, which requires an employer to pay an employee premium wages for "Any work" after eight hours per day or 40 hours per work week.  See's Candy then argued that its timekeeping records were inaccurate because of its unusual grace period policy that allows employees to clock in up to 10 minutes before their scheduled shift time so long as they do not start working until the actual start time.

The Court of Appeal examined the competing approaches, holding that See's Candy had the better view:

Although California employers have long engaged in employee time-rounding, there is no California statute or case law specifically authorizing or prohibiting this practice. Absent specific binding authority under California law, See's Candy argues that it is appropriate for this court to adopt the federal regulatory standard, which is also used by the DLSE (the state agency charged with enforcing California's wage and hour laws), and allows rounding if the employees are fully compensated "over a period of time." (29 C.F.R. § 785.48(b).) Silva counters that this federal/DLSE rule violates California statutes and rounding should be permitted only if the employer "unrounds" every two weeks to ensure full compensation. For the reasons explained below, we conclude the federal/DLSE standard is the appropriate standard.

Slip op., at 17.  To support this conclusion, an extensive discussion of federal law, state law, and DLSE regulations follows.  Distilled to its essence, the key holding of the Court turns on its construction of Labor Code section 204:

Moreover, Silva's contention has a false premise — that using unrounded figures within a finite time period is the only way to measure "All" earned wages. (§ 204, subd. (a).) Fundamentally, the question whether all wages have been paid is different from the issue of how an employer calculates the number of hours worked and thus what wages are owed. Section 204 does not address the measurement issue. The Legislature has amended section 204 since the DLSE adopted the federal rounding regulation, and has never indicated that the state agency's adoption of the federal rounding rule is inconsistent with its statutory provision.

Slip op., at 24.  The Court then declared its finding as to California law, and addressed the analysis that it would apply in the context of the case before it:

Relying on the DOL rounding standard, we have concluded that the rule in California is that an employer is entitled to use the nearest-tenth rounding policy if the rounding policy is fair and neutral on its face and "it is used in such a manner that it will not result, over a period of time, in failure to compensate the employees properly for all the time they have actually worked." (29 C.F.R. § 785.48; see DLSE Manual, supra, §§ 47.1, 47.2.) Applying this legal standard, we turn to address whether the parties met their summary adjudication burdens with respect to the 39th and 40th affirmative defenses alleging that See's Candy's nearest-tenth rounding policy was consistent with California law.

Slip op., at 27.  Thus, as with federal law, the legality of rounding in California turns on the outcome, not its use.  Rounding is judged "as applied," not "as defined."  In this matter, the Court concluded that the plaintiff did not meet the burden of proof on a motion for summary judgment to dispose of See's Candy's affirmative defenses before trial.

Second Appellate District, Division Eight, not interested in changing opinions post-Brinker

After the Supreme Court decided Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004 (2012), a number of cases were remanded to Courts of Appeal for further consideration after Petition grant and hold Orders were issued in those cases.  The Second Appellate District, Division Eight, seems to have a disproportionate share of those cases.  And, generally speaking, Division Eight concluded that Brinker didn't require any change in its analyses:

• In re Lamps Plus Overtime Cases, 209 Cal. App. 4th 35 (2012)
• Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 208 Cal. App. 4th 1487 (2012), as modified (Sept. 25, 2012)
• Tien v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation (October 4, 2012)

In all fairness to Division Eight, the other Courts of Appeal didn't seem to think that, even though Brinker declared a somewhat different standard than that applied by many Courts of Appeal, the clarified standard, according to the Courts of Appeal, didn't require any material modification to their prior opinions.  Go figure.

Interestingly, the same Division Eight, which never met a meal period it liked, partially reversed a denial of class certification in an unpublished decision, Santos v. Vitas Healthcare Corp. of California, Case No. B222645, 2012 WL 4378175 (Sept. 26, 2012).  The Court relied heavily on Brinker for its discussion of an employer's obligation to pay employees when it knows, or has reason to know, that employees are working overtime or off-the-clock.  Hmmmm.

Statement of issues provided by California Supreme Court in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation

The Statement of Issues for the Iskanian v. CLS Transportation matter is as follows:

This case presents the following issues: (1) Did AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. __ [131 S. Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742] impliedly overrule Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443 with respect to contractual class action waivers in the context of non-waivable labor law rights? (2) Does the high court's decision permit arbitration agreements to override the statutory right to bring representative claims under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab. Code, 2698 et seq.)? (3) Did defendant waive its right to compel arbitration?

A different other day, another arbitration decision: Gentry maybe not preempted

This is also a day of the week ending in the letter "Y."  Hence, a new arbitration opinion to discuss.  In Truly Nolen of America v. Superior Court (August 13, 2012), the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division One) examined several arbitration issues in a putative class action wage & hour matter.  Adding to the miasma of conflicting aribtration opinions in California, this Court concluded that Gentry was not preempted by Concepcion and must be followed under principles of stare decisis.  However, the Court also found that, on the factual record in the trial court, the Gentry test was not satisfied.  Instead, the Court directed the trial court to permit briefing on the issue of whether the parties' agreement includes an implied agreement to permit class arbitration.

In the trial court, defendant moved to compel arbitration.  The arbitration agreements did not contain a specific provision pertaining to the availability or unavailability of classwide arbitration.  The court granted the motion to compel arbitration, but rejected defendant's request that the court order individual arbitration, relying on Gentry v. Superior Court, 42 Cal. 4th 443 (2007).  Defendant petitioned for review.

The Court set forthan extensive history of arbitration law in California, beginning with cases before Stolt-Neilsen and Concepcion.  It is very exiting, so I will not spoil it by summarizing it here.  Then the Court discussed the impact of Concepcion on Discover Bank and Gentry.  Having concluded the history lesson, the Court had to choose from the conflicting decisions as to whether Gentry remains valid law.

Exercising caution, the Court threaded the eye of the needle, concluding that it doubted the analysis of cases finding Genry valid but agreeing with the plaintiffs that it was nevertheless obligated to follow decisions of the California Supreme Court until expressly invalidated: "On federal statutory issues, intermediate appellate courts in California are absolutely bound to follow the decisions of the California Supreme Court, unless the United States Supreme Court has decided the same question differently."  Slip op., at 23.

Having so concluded, the Court then considered whether the evidentiary record was sufficient to support a finding that the Gentry factors were present.  The Court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to connect attorney declarations with the facts of the case.  Based on an insufficient evidentiary record, the Court reversed the trial court's finding that Gentry required a class arbitration.

Next, the Court examined other contentions.  First, the Court agreed that an arbitartion agreement may include an implied agreement to class arbitration:  "Relying on Stolt-Nielsen, the courts have recognized that an implied agreement may be sufficient to support class arbitration."  (Slip op., at 33.)  Although plaintiffs did not raise the issue in the trial court, the Court concluded that they were not precluded from doing so on remand.  The Court left it to the trial court to develop the record as to whether the parties' agreement includes an implied agreement to class arbitrations.  Notably, the Court recognized that California contract law would govern the analysis of whether an implied agreement permitting arbitration agreements exists.

Next, as with several other Courts of Appeal, the Court, in cursory fashion, rejected the contention that the NLRA protects employees from the enforcement of contract provisions that would impede their right to undertake concerted activity, including class actions.  I have commented elsewhere on the paucity of analysis supplied by other Courts in California (Iskanian and Nelsen), and this Court did nothing to advance the analysis beyond more than something akin to bare assertion based on skepticism.  As an aside, even if the Court believes that its scant analysis is correct, the existence of the NLRA and the many decisions protecting class actions as concerted activity should, at minimum, supply the requisite implied intent to permit class arbitrations.  After all, the defendant could not have intended to violate the NLRA, could it?

With every class-related arbitration decision issued in California, the need for comprehensive, detailed holdings from the California Supreme Court grows.  I urge the California Supreme Court to assist parties in consumer and employment class actions by sweeping up all of these decisions and rendering a number of much needed rulings as quickly as possible.

Christopher et al. v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., dba Glaxosmithkline holds, 5-4, that pharma sales reps are exempt as "outside salespersons"

The United States Supreme Court, in Christopher et al. v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., dba Glaxosmithkline (June 18, 2012), examined the question of whether pharmaceutical sales representatives, whose primary duty was to obtain nonbinding commitments from physicians to prescribe their employer’s prescription drugs, were correctly classified as exempt from overtime pay requirements set forth in the Fair Labor Standards Act.  In the courts below, defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiffs were “employed in the capacity of outside salesman,” §213(a)(1), and therefore were exempt from the FLSA’s overtime compensation requirement. The District Court agreed and granted summary judgment to defendant. Plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, contending that the District Court had erred in failing to accord controlling deference to the DOL’s interpretation of the pertinent regulations, which the DOL had announced in an amicus brief filed in a similar action. The District Court rejected this argument and denied the motion. The Ninth Circuit, agreeing that the DOL’s interpretation was not entitled to controlling deference, affirmed.

The opinion was decided on sharply divided 5-4 lines, with one majority opinion and one minority opinion. The opinion considered three of the DOL’s regulations: §§541.500, 541.501, and 541.503. The Court referred to the three regulations as the “general regulation,” the “sales regulation,” and the “promotion-work regulation,” respectively.

First, the majority observed that the DOL’s own interpretation of its regulations was not consistent over time. In briefs filed before the Second and Ninth Circuits, “the DOL took the view that ‘a “sale” for the purposes of the outside sales exemption requires a con- summated transaction directly involving the employee for whom the exemption is sought.’” Slip op., at 9. After certiorari was granted in this matter, the DOL took the position that “ ‘[a]n employee does not make a “sale” for purposes of the “outside salesman” exemption unless he actually transfers title to the property at issue.’ ” Slip op., at 9.

Next, the majority observed that Auer deference to the DOL’s ambiguous regulations was not justified because to do so would allow for imposition of “potentially massive liability on respondent for conduct that occurred well before that interpretation was announced.” Slip op., at 10. Continuing, the Court said:

Until 2009, the pharmaceutical industry had little reason to suspect that its longstanding practice of treating detailers as exempt outside salesmen transgressed the FLSA. The statute and regulations certainly do not provide clear notice of this. The general regulation adopts the broad statutory definition of “sale,” and that definition, in turn, employs the broad catchall phrase “other disposition.” See 29 CFR §541.500(a)(1). This catchall phrase could reasonably be construed to encompass a nonbinding commitment from a physician to prescribe a particular drug, and nothing in the statutory or regulatory text or the DOL’s prior guidance plainly requires a contrary reading. See Preamble 22162 (explaining that an employee must “in some sense” make a sale); 1940 Report 46 (same).

Slip op., at 12. Then the majority noted that, despite the industry’s decades of applying an exempt classification, the DOL never initiated any enforcement action.

The majority then discussed the DOL’s interpretations and found them unpersuasive, particularly with respect to the definition of “sale.” The Court held:

This new interpretation is flatly inconsistent with the FLSA, which defines “sale” to mean, inter alia, a “consignment for sale.” A “consignment for sale” does not involve the transfer of title. See, e.g., Sturm v. Boker, 150 U. S. 312, 330 (1893) (“The agency to sell and return the proceeds, or the specific goods if not sold . . . does not involve a change of title”); Hawkland, Consignment Selling Under the Uniform Commercial Code, 67 Com. L. J. 146, 147 (1962) (explaining that “‘[a] consignment of goods for sale does not pass the title at any time, nor does it contemplate that it should be passed’” (quoting Rio Grande Oil Co. v. Miller Rubber Co. of N. Y., 31 Ariz. 84, 87, 250 P. 564, 565 (1926))).

Slip op., at 15. The majority then spends some time construing the regulation itself, concluding that the language of the statute was intended to broadly include all manner of transactions that, in certain industries, were tantamount to a sale in the most conventional sense. In the regulated industry of pharmaceutical sales, the majority observed that the representatives did all that was allowed:

Obtaining a nonbinding commitment from a physician to prescribe one of respondent’s drugs is the most that petitioners were able to do to ensure the eventual disposition of the products that respondent sells. This kind of arrangement, in the unique regulatory environment within which pharmaceutical companies must operate, comfortably falls within the catch- all category of “other disposition.”

Slip op., at 20-21.

The minority opinion, authored by Justice Breyer, accepted the majority’s description of the job in question and agreed that deference to the DOL interpretation was not justified given the recent change in that interpretation. Instead, the minority opnion simply disagrees with the construction of the language at issue:

Unless we give the words of the statute and regulations some special meaning, a detailer’s primary duty is not that of “making sales” or the equivalent. A detailer might convince a doctor to prescribe a drug for a particular kind of patient. If the doctor encounters such a patient, he might prescribe the drug. The doctor’s client, the patient, might take the prescription to a pharmacist and ask the pharmacist to fill the prescription. If so, the pharmacist might sell the manufacturer’s drug to the patient, or might substitute a generic version. But it is the pharmacist, not the detailer, who will have sold the drug.

Minority slip op., at 3. The minority opinion concludes that the representatives stimulate sales eventually made by others:

The detailer’s work, in my view, is more naturally characterized as involving “[p]romotional activities designed to stimulate sales . . . made by someone else,” §541.503, e.g., the pharmacist or the wholesaler, than as involving “[p]romotional activities designed to stimulate” the detailer’s “own sales.”

Minority slip op., at 5. The minority emphasized the fact that doctors determine what to prescribe, based on medical need:

To the contrary, the document makes clear that the pharmaceutical industry itself understands that it cannot be a detailer’s “primary duty” to obtain a nonbinding commitment, for, in respect to many doctors, such a commitment taken alone is unlikely to make a significant difference to their doctor’s use of a particular drug. When a particular drug, say Drug D, constitutes the best treatment for a particular patient, a knowledgeable doctor should (hence likely will) prescribe it irrespective of any nonbinding commitment to do so. Where some other drug, however, is likely to prove more beneficial for a particular patient, that doctor should not (hence likely will not) prescribe Drug D irrespective of any nonbinding commitment to the contrary.

Minority slip op., at 6. The minority concluded by dismissing the majority’s fears that a salesman who takes an order would suddenly become non-exempt by transferring the order to jobber’s employee to be filled. The minority noted that the example created no basis for fear, given that the salesman had obtained a firm commitment to buy the product. Regardless of the quality of the counter-arguments, the minority opinion by Justice Breyer is just that, a minority opinion, and "sales" are evidently in the eye of the beholder.

Confusion surrounding arbitration agreements rapidly escalating in California following conflicting decisions in Hoover, Iskanian

I've been working on a project involving arbitration issues.  My uncertainty about whether to keep all of my powder dry, so to speak, caused a fair bit of my delay in commenting about two relatively new arbitration decisions from California Courts of Appeal.  In Hoover v. American Income Life Insurance Company (June 13, 2012), the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division Two) affirmed a trial court's denial of a motion to compel arbitration.  In Iskanian v. CLS Transportion Los Angeles, LLC (June 4, 2012), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Two) affirmed a trial court order granting a motion to compel arbitration and dismissing class claims.  Looks like the unremarkable results of Courts of Appeal deferring to finding of trial courts, right?  No.  So very wrong.  What these two actually do is create an explicit rift on the issue of whether statutory rights, at least in the labor context, are subject to individual arbitration.  In the process, the Iskanian Court rejects its sister-division's holding in Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 197 Cal. App. 4th 489 (2011) that Concepcion does not apply to PAGA's representative claims.  The Iskanian Court also refused to follow the NLRB's D.R. Horton decision that protects an employee's right to pursue class claims as a form of concerted activity.  The two cases also disagree as to the reach of Concepcion and Stolt-Neilsen. In sum, the relative clarity that existed in California following Gentry and Discover Bank is now a distant memory.  The California Supreme Court will need to resolve these issues soon, regardless of whether the United States Supreme Court takes on any of these issues in the future.

Hoover concerned a dispute as to whether an individual was misclassified as an independent contractor rather than an employee.  Hoover framed where its analysis would go very early in the opinion, with this footnote:

The conclusions we reach here avert any dependence, as urged by AIL, on two recent United States Supreme Court opinions, addressing the issue of class arbitrations for antitrust claims and consumer sales contracts. (Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp. (2010) ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1758; AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 1740.) “AT&T does not provide that a public right . . . can be waived if such a waiver is contrary to state law.” (Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 489, 500, 502-503.) We also do not need to address the unconscionability argument and the continuing viability of Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83.)

Hoover slip op., at 3 n. 2.  From this we know that (1) Hoover views Concepcion and Stolt-Nielsen as limited to consumer sales contracts and antitrust issues respectively, and (2) Hoover views Brown v. Ralphs as correctly decided.

Hoover first discusses (extensively, if you are interested) the concept of waiver following too great a delay in moving to compel arbitration.  That discussion doesn't pave a lot of new ground.

Hoover gets interesting when it talks about the Labor Code claims asserted in the matter:

As a general rule, state statutory wage and hour claims are not subject to arbitration, whether the arbitration clause is contained in the CBA or an individual agreement. The CBA cannot waive the right to sue under applicable federal or state statutes because these statutory rights “devolve on petitioners as individual workers, not as members of a collective organization.” (Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc. (1981) 450 U.S. 728, 745, overruled on other grounds in Gilmer v.  Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. (1991) 500 U.S. 20; Zavala v. Scott Brothers Dairy, Inc. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 585, 592 [rule applicable to wage claims under Labor Code and IWC wage orders].)

Hoover slip op., at 15-16.  Continuing, Hoover held:

An individual arbitration agreement also does not apply to an action to enforce statutes governing collection of unpaid wages, which “may be maintained without regard to the existence of any private agreement to arbitrate. . . .” (§ 229.) The intent is to assure a judicial forum where there exists a dispute as to wages, notwithstanding the strong public policy favoring arbitration. (Ware v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 35, 43; Flores v. Axxis Network & Telecommunications, Inc. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 802, 811.) An exception to the general rule occurs when there is federal preemption by FAA, as applied to contracts evidencing interstate commerce. (Perry v. Thomas (1987) 482 U.S. 483, 490.)

Hoover slip op., at 17.  Statutory claims for unpaid wages may proceed in court, regardless of an agreement to arbitrate.  Zowwee!  But wait - there is an exception for contracts related to interstate commerce.  Does Hoover fit into that exception?  No, says the Hoover Court:

Based on this record, it cannot be said the subject agreement involves interstate commerce. AIL had the burden to demonstrate FAA coverage by declarations and other evidence. (Shepard v. Edward Mackay Enterprises, Inc. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1092, 1101; Woolls v. Superior Court (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 197, 213-214.) The only established facts are that Hoover was a California resident who sold life insurance policies. Even though AIL is based in Texas, there was no evidence in the record establishing that the relationship between Hoover and AIL had a specific effect or “bear[ing] on interstate commerce in a substantial way.” (Citizens Bank v. Alafabco, Inc. (2003) 539 U.S. 52, 56-57.) Hoover was not an employee of a national stock brokerage or the employee of a member of a national stock exchange. (Thorup v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., supra, 180 Cal.App.3d at p. 233; Baker v. Aubry (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1259, 1266.) Unlike the plaintiff in Giuliano v. Inland Empire Personnel, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1287, Hoover did not work in other states or engage in multimillion dollar loan activity that affected interstate commerce by negotiating with a bank that was headquartered in another state. Under these circumstances, if the FAA did not apply, the exception favoring federal preemption and arbitration did not operate.

Hoover slip op., at 17-18.  So that's going to get some unmentionables in a twist.

Iskanian is, at least in spirit, the antimatter to Hoover's matter.  Iskanian involves a certified class that avoided arbitration once before, when the issuance of Gentry caused the reversal of the trial court's first Order compelling arbitration.  Following Concepcion and Stolt-Nielsen, the defendant in Iskanian tried again.  This time, the Iskanian Court affirmed the second Order compelling individual arbitration.  In the process, the Court gave Concepcion and Stolt-Nielsen the broadest possible constructions, held Gentry overruled, disregarded Brown v. Ralphs and rejected protections supplied by the NLRA and preserved by D.R. Horton.

First, regarding Gentry, Iskanian said:

Now, we find that the Concepcion decision conclusively invalidates the Gentry test. First, under Gentry, if a plaintiff was successful in meeting the test, the case would be decided in class arbitration (unless the plaintiff could show that the entire arbitration agreement was unconscionable, in which case the agreement would be wholly void). But Concepcion thoroughly rejected the concept that class arbitration procedures should be imposed on a party who never agreed to them. (Concepcion, supra, 131 S.Ct. at pp. 1750-1751.) The Concepcion court held that nonconsensual class arbitration was inconsistent with the FAA because: (i) it “sacrifices the principal advantage of arbitration—informality—and makes the process slower, more costly, and more likely to generate procedural morass than final judgment”; (ii) it requires procedural formality since rules governing class arbitration “mimic the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for class litigation”; and (iii) it “greatly increases risks to defendants,” since it lacks the multilevel review that exists in a judicial forum. (Id. at pp. 1751-1752; see also StoltNielsen S. A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp. (2010) 130 S. Ct. 1758, 1775 [“a party may not be compelled under the FAA to submit to class arbitration unless there is a contractual basis for concluding that the party agreed to do so”].) This unequivocal rejection of court-imposed class arbitration applies just as squarely to the Gentry test as it did to the Discover Bank rule.

Iskanian slip op., at 8-9.  But the Court wasn't done:

Third, the premise that Iskanian brought a class action to “vindicate statutory rights” is irrelevant in the wake of Concepcion. As the Concepcion court reiterated, “States cannot require a procedure that is inconsistent with the FAA, even if it is desirable for unrelated reasons.” (131 S.Ct. at p. 1753.) The sound policy reasons identified in Gentry for invalidating certain class waivers are insufficient to trump the far-reaching effect of the FAA, as expressed in Concepcion. Concepcion's holding in this regard is consistent with previously established law. (See Perry v. Thomas, supra, 482 U.S. at p. 484 [finding that § 2 of the FAA preempts Lab. Code, § 229, which provides that actions for the collection of wages “may be maintained 'without regard to the existence of any private agreement to arbitrate'”]; Southland Corp. v. Keating (1984) 465 U.S. 1, 10-11 [holding that the California Supreme Court's interpretation of the Franchise Investment Law as requiring judicial consideration despite the terms of an arbitration agreement directly conflicted with section 2 of the FAA and violated the Supremacy Clause]; Preston v. Ferrer (2008) 552 U.S. 346, 349-350 [holding, “when parties agree to arbitrate all questions arising under a contract, state laws lodging primary jurisdiction in another forum, whether judicial or administrative, are superseded by the FAA”].)

Iskanian slip op., at 9-10.  In its analysis, the Iskanian Court selectively disregarded valid federal law recognizing that vindication of statutory rights remains a basis for declining to enforce an arbitration agreement.  And all of this leaves unanswered the true foundational question: how does the federal government have the constitutional authority over a state's distribution of disputes alleging state law violations in state courts?  Even Concepcion cannot be viewed as answering that question, as it was decided in federal courts over which the federal government does have jurisdiction.  Anyhow, Iskanian had more carnage to release...

Next, the Iskanian Court rejected D.R. Horton, but without any cogent analysis as to why it was incorrectly decided. In D.R. Horton, the NLRB held that a mandatory, employer-imposed agreement requiring all employment-related disputes to be resolved through individual arbitration (and disallowing class or collective claims) violated the NLRA because it prohibited the exercise of substantive rights protected by section 7 of the NLRA.  Section 7 provides in part that employees shall have the right “to engage in . . . concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection . . . .”  (29 U.S.C. § 157.)   The NLRB found that “employees who join together to bring employmentrelated claims on a classwide or collective basis in court or before an arbitrator are exercising rights protected by Section 7 of the NLRA.”  However, that holding was not new to D.R.Horton, as Iskanian implies.  Rather, decades of authority confirm that class and collective actions constitute protected concerted activity.  That, at least, is well-settled.

Next, Iskanian declares that since D.R. Horton analyzes laws beyond the NLRA, the Court would not defer to it.  Problematically, declining to defer is different than independently reaching the same result following a review of the relevant authority.  Here, Iskanian seems to view a right to decline to defer as a right to choose the alternative construction, absent any analysis.  Instead, the Court said:

The D.R. Horton decision identified no “congressional command” in the NLRA prohibiting enforcement of an arbitration agreement pursuant to its terms. D.R. Horton’s holding—that employment-related class claims are “concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection” protected by section 7 of the NLRA, so that the FAA does not apply—elevates the NLRB's interpretation of the NLRA over section 2 of the FAA. This holding does not withstand scrutiny in light of Concepcion and CompuCredit.

Iskanian slip op., at 13.  Iskanian is simply wrong.  D.R. Horton provided a very detailed discussion of the fact that the FAA does not authorize agreements that violate federal law, including the NLRA and related statutory provisions.  The NLRB was working squarely within its area of expertise when it concluded that an agreement interfering with section 7 rights was unenforceable as an illegal contract.  The fact that the agreement was an arbitration agreement is irrelevant.  Illegal contracts are unenforceable.  Concepcion did not change contract law precluding enforcement of illegal agreements.  Moreover, the NLRB noted in D.R. Horton that the Norris-LaGuardia Act was enacted after the FAA.  Thus, it cannot be said that the FAA "overruled" the NLRA.  Rather, if anything, the NLRA limited the FAA in that it defined a new zone of contracts that were illegal.  Iskanian Court don't care!

Next, Iskanian opined that Brown v. Ralphs was wrongly decided:

In finding that Concepcion did not apply to PAGA representative claims, the Brown majority wrote: “[Concepcion] does not purport to deal with the FAA's possible preemption of contractual efforts to eliminate representative private attorney general actions to enforce the Labor Code. As noted, the PAGA creates a statutory right for civil penalties for Labor Code violations 'that otherwise would be sought by state labor law enforcement agencies.' . . . This purpose contrasts with the private individual right of a consumer to pursue class action remedies in court or arbitration, which right, according to [Concepcion], may be waived by agreement so as not to frustrate the FAA—a law governing private arbitrations. [Concepcion] does not provide that a public right, such as that created under the PAGA, can be waived if such a waiver is contrary to state law.” (197 Cal.App.4th at p. 500.)

Respectfully, we disagree with the majority's holding in Brown. We recognize that the PAGA serves to benefit the public and that private attorney general laws may be severely undercut by application of the FAA. But we believe that United States Supreme Court has spoken on the issue, and we are required to follow its binding authority.

Iskanian slip op., at 15.  Again, Iskanian avoids any analysis of authority that might undercut its decision.  Vindication of statutory rights is currently a recognized basis for declining to enforce an arbitration agreement.  All Iskanian does is point at Concepcion and declare that it is following it.  In doing so, Iskanian goes too far and creates a rift in California law that requires immediate attention by the California Supreme Court.

Two cases, two contrary sets of conclusions.

(Surprising) California Supreme Court activity for the week of May 14, 2012

The California Supreme Court held its (usually) weekly conference on May 16, 2012.  Highly notable results include:

• Review was granted in Duran v. U.S. Bank National Association (February 6, 2012). The Court of Appeal reversed a trial verdict for a class of managers claiming misclassification and decertified the class.  The case was covered on this blog here.  I would have put the odds on obtaining review at zero when I wrote about Duran in February.  But, after reading Brinker, there were a number of comments suggesting that the Supreme Court might support the forms of sampling evidence used in the Duran trial.  Of course, review may also have been granted to clarify that decertification by the Court of Appeal was inappropriate, with the better approach being to remand for a new trial and reconsideration of the certification question by the trial court.  All that speculation aside, I am shocked, SHOCKED, to find that review was granted here.  Of course, it is also possible that the Petition for Review, which I have not seen, paints a decidedly different picture than the one presented by the Court of Appeal.