Are punitive damages available in class actions asserting statutory wage & hour violations? Savaglio v. Wal-Mart may have the answer.
/California Punitive Damages has an intriguing post about a pending appeal that could affect punitive damage claims in wage & hour class actions. (Cutting, Pending Appeal Will Affect Punitive Damages Claims In Wage & Hour Class Actions (May 16, 2008) calpunitives.blogspot.com.) In an appeal to the First Appellate District, Division Four, Wal-Mart is contesting, among other things, a $115 million punitive damages award by asserting the "new right-exclusive remedy" rule:
“Among the issues that Wal-Mart has raised on appeal is whether California's "new right-exclusive remedy" rule bars the punitive damages award in this wage and hour case. Under this rule, "where a statute creates a right that did not exist at common law and provides a comprehensive and detailed remedial scheme for its enforcement, the statutory remedy is exclusive." (Rojo v. Kliger (1990) 52 Cal.3d 65, 79.) According to Wal-Mart's opening appellate brief, no California appellate cases have upheld an award of punitive damages for any statutory wage and hour claims, and at least three federal district courts have applied the "new right-exclusive remedy" rule to dismiss claims seeking punitive damages predicated on alleged wage and hour violations.
(Ibid.) So what is the "new right-exclusive remedy" rule you ask? Tell me about Rojo you say? You had but to ask.
ClassActionBlawg.com has just
I must confess that, of all decisions for which I may take blame or credit, Alvarez v. May Dept. Stores Co. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1223 sticks in my craw as the most abhorrent and most memorable (by a slight margin). Not that I didn't give Alvarez my all; I have no shame there. But I lost the appeal. Then my Petition for Review was denied by the California Supreme Court (though Justice Kennard was of the opinion that it should have been granted), and I even went so far as to file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. It was, of course, denied. The oral argument in the Court of Appeal lasted something like 45 minutes (it went way over the allowed time), and about 40 minutes of it were non-stop questions from all three justices. It was brutal, educational, and intensely disappointing. Mostly disappointing.
A couple of days ago, I 