California Grocers Association v. City of Los Angeles holds that City may regulate wholesale replacement of a workforce after purchase of a business

In California Grocers Association v. City of Los Angeles (July 18, 2011), the California Supreme Court considered whether a worker retention ordinance -- regulating the ability of some employers to summarily replace a workforce after purchasing the business -- is preempted as intruding upon either matters of health and safety already regulated by the state or matters of employee organization and collective bargaining fully occupied by federal law.  The six Justices in the majority explained in their 38-page opinion that the neutral ordinace promulaged by the City of Los Angeles did not run afoul of preemption landmines.  The dissenting opinion, all 27 pages of it, concluded otherwise, essentially on the ground that the NLRA is intended to confer upon employers the right to hire anyone they want.  The majority wasn't persuaded by this analysis, opining instead that the NLRA was actually passed to protect employees and regulate employers.  Crazy talk.

The City of Los Angeles passed an ordinance much like those passed in other municipalities.  The Los Angeles Ordinance, focused on grocery stores, was summarized by the Court:

For grocery stores of a specific size (15,000 square feet or larger) that undergo a change of ownership, the Ordinance vests current employees with certain individual rights during a 90-day transition period. First, the incumbent owner is to prepare a list of nonmanagerial employees with at least six months' employment as of the date of transfer in ownership, and the successor employer must hire from that list during the transition period. (L.A. Mun. Code, § 181.02.) Second, during that same period, the hired employees may be discharged only for cause. (Id., § 181.03(A)-(C).) Third, at the conclusion of the transition period, the successor employer must prepare a written evaluation of each employee's performance. The Ordinance does not require that anyone be retained, but if an employee's performance is satisfactory, the employer must "consider" offering continued employment. (Id., § 181.03(D).) If the workforce is unionized, however, the union and the employer may agree on terms that supersede the Ordinance. (Id., § 181.06.)

Slip op., at 2.  The California Grocers Association did not like this ordinance and sued to enjoin its implementation.

The Court began its analysis with state law preemption in the health and safety field.  The majority had little difficulty explaining why an ordinance regulating mass terminations had little direct impact on any health and safety regulations controlling how food is handled in grocery stores.

Next, the Court examined federal preemption:

We consider as well whether the Ordinance is preempted by the NLRA, a federal law enacted to protect "the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively." (29 U.S.C. § 151.)

Slip op., at 11.  Summarizing the post-Machinists preemption cases, the Court first explained that preemption was directed at regulations of bargaining process, not local employment laws setting substantive minimum labor standards for all employees.  Next, the Court considered whether there was evidence of a clear and manifest congressional intent to bar at any level the regulation of employee retention during ownership transitions.  Working their way through the history of such decisions, the Court found solid support for the notion that the NLRA was silent as to an obligation to hire the employees of a purchased business.  The Court finished its analysis by concluding that the retention ordinance should not have a meaningful impact on successorship obligations.

Finally, the Court declined to set aside the ordinance on equal protection grounds, observing that a rational relationship exists between the stated goal of the ordinance and the decision to focus on large grocery stores.

The dissent contested the majority's decision by asserting, again and again, that the NLRA provides employers with a protected right to hire as they see fit.  The majority directly dispatched this argument with great brevity, and the length of the dissent does not make it more persuasive in my view.

Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Company decided, but dodges the Gentry-Concepcion issue and the NLRA prohibition on concerted activity bans

The Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Five) issued its opinion today in Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Company (July 12, 2011).  The opinion is notable for what it doesn't address.  As mentioned previously here, the Court had requested supplemental briefing on the issue of whether Concepcion dished out the Discover Bank treatment to Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443.  After a few feverish days of writing an amicus brief (for CAOC) focused primarily on the fact that the National Labor Relations Act prohibits enforcement of any contract that would impede concerted activity by employees (including class actions to improve wages and working conditions), I was disappointed to see that the Court dodged the entire question, deciding the matter on the ground that a factual showing had not been made in the trial court to support the Gentry factors.  There is also a split decision discussion of how PAGA claims interact with motions to compel arbitration.

On balance, this non-opinion doesn't do much to answer the question of how Concepcion interacts with wage & hour class actions and the Gentry decision.  It will take another appellate vehicle to properly present those questions for review.

Collaborative editing now available for the Microsoft Word Web App

Microsoft announced today that it is adding the ability for multiple authors to simultaneously edit Word documents on SkyDrive using the Word Web App.  Imagine sitting at a mediation, working on part of a settlement MOU while someone back at your office edits or adds content to some other part of the document.  You could even quietly collaborate on a settlement agreement with opposing counsel so that you had a long form agreement ready for signatures right there.  Crazy.  Microsoft has been slow to refocus on new areas of competition, but it is building a head of steam with Google in its sights.

Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. v. Superior Court (Holland) tells us what ISN'T a split shift

"Split shift."  So easy to say, but surprisingly hard to define in a way that doesn't require a list of demonstrative examples and exclusions.  In Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. v. Superior Court (Holland) (July 7, 2011), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Three) issued an order to show cause to consider issues related to the interaction of the split shift definiion in Industrial Wage Commission‟s wage order No. 4-2001 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040) and the declaration of a "workday" by an employer (security guards worked shifts beginning in one "workday" and continuing into the next).  The trial court rejected the Securitas definition of "split shift" and denied its motion for summary judgment.  The Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial court's analysis, but agreed that summary judgment could not be granted.

For reference, the Court set forth the definitions at issue:

Wage Order No. 4 defines a “split shift” as “a work schedule, which is interrupted by non-paid non-working periods established by the employer, other than bona fide rest or meal breaks.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040, subd. 2(Q).)

A “shift” is defined as “designated hours of work by an employee, with a designated beginning time and quitting time.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040, subd. 2(P).) A “workday” is defined as “any consecutive 24-hour period beginning at the same time each calendar day.” (Id., subd. 2(T); see also Lab. Code, § 500, subd. (a).)

Slip op., at 6.  Jumping to the end of the story, the Court noted that "work schedule" is not tied to the definition of "workday."  The Court went with its common sense construction of the term: "In the context of a provision establishing minimum wages to compensate employees who are required to return to work after an interruption in their 'work schedule,' we believe that a 'work schedule' simply means an employee's designated working hours or periods of work."  Slip op., at 7.  Thus, consecutive overnight shifts that overlap a definied "workday" do not create split shifts because the "shift" is a continguous block, even though it overlaps a "workday."

The Court then discussed the policies behind overtime pay, split shift premiums, meal period premiums, and the like, quoting extensively from Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., 40 Cal. 4th 1094 (2007).

After all that, the Court noted that Securitas failed to prove that the plaintiffs didn't work actual split shifts at other times.

Now we know one circumstance that isn't a split shift.  We are still left, however, without complete guidance as to what qualifies as a bona fide split shift.  Can an employer give its employees an hour and a half lunch without creating a split shift?  Can it give two hour lunches?  How many hours have to elapse between the end of one work period before it is viewed as a distinct and complete "shift?"  Bonus answer: probably more than 1 and less than 24.

If you thought that Court under-funding in California was unconstitutional last year.... "Whoa, Nelly!"

According to press reports, the legislature's court budget cuts of $150 million for operations and $310 million in court construction funding have increased after Governor Jerry Brown used line item veto power to slash another $22 million from California trial court operations and security.  Underfunding at this level is unconstitutional.  The judiciary is a co-equal, constitutional branch of government.  It cannot function correctly at this funding level.  The Legislature and Governor do not suffer equivalent operational impairment from the budget cuts they impose elsewhere.  Only the judicial branch must suplicate, hat in hand, for enough money to do the people's work.

The past three years account for a 30% general funding cut for California's Courts.  I don't think their obligations decreased by 30%.  If anything, a difficult economy creates more litigation events.

I wrote about this previously here and copied a Daily Journal article on the subject here.

Sullivan v. Oracle Corporation addresses how California law applies to nonresident employees working both in and outside California

Today, the California Supreme Court issued an Opinion following its acceptance of questions about the construction of California law from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  In Sullivan v. Oracle Corporation (June 30, 2011), the Court addressed (1) whether the Labor Code's overtime provisions apply to plaintiffs' claims for compensation for work performed in this state [with the ancillary question of whether the same claims can serve as predicates for claims under California's unfair competition law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.)], and (2) whether the plaintiffs' claims for overtime compensation under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) (29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.; see id., § 207(a)) for work performed in other states can serve as predicates for UCL claims.

The Court responded "yes" to the first question group, and "no" to the second.

On the first issue, the Court said:  "The California Labor Code does apply to overtime work performed in California for a California-based employer by out-of-state plaintiffs in the circumstances of this case, such that overtime pay is required for work in excess of eight hours per day or in excess of forty hours per week. (See Sullivan III, supra, 557 F.3d 979, 983.)"  (Slip op., at 18.)

On the related UCL question, the Court said: "Business and Professions Code section 17200 does apply to the overtime work described in question one. (See Sullivan III, supra, 557 F.3d 979, 983.)"  Slip op., at 19.)

The full answer to the last issues was:  "Business and Professions Code section 17200 does not apply to overtime work performed outside California for a California-based employer by out-of-state plaintiffs in the circumstances of this case based solely on the employer's failure to comply with the overtime provisions of the FLSA."  (Slip op., at 23.)

The Opinion was issued by a unanimous Court.

Update on 2011-06-30 17:42 by The Complex Litigator

The post title was corrected after the initial posting.

The Complex Litigator is now on Alltop

The Complex Litigator is now listed on Alltop, in the legal news section.  Alltop is the magazine newsrack for the Internet.  Here's how Alltop describes its purpose:

The purpose of Alltop is to help you answer the question, “What’s happening?” in “all the topics” that interest you. You may wonder how Alltop is different from a search engine. A search engine is good to answer a question like, “How many people live in China?” However, it has a much harder time answering the question, “What’s happening in China?” That’s the kind of question that we answer.

Alltop is a unique way to view current events or issues of current interest in any particular field.  I recommend skimming the legal news section from time to time, to spot trends if nothing else.

So...cool.

Breaking News: Walmart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes decided by Supreme Court; Reversed

I'll preface this brief post by noting that I have not had a chance to read the entire opinion, but the opnion in Walmart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes (June 20, 2011) was released this morning by the United States Supreme Court.  The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and the District Court, finding that the matter was not suitable for class certification.  The core majority was authored by Justice SCALIA. ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined in that opinion, and GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined as to Parts I and III.  Justice GINSBURG authored an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.  BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN joined in Justice GINSBURG'S opinion.

Some key aspects of the holding are:

• Proof of commonality necessarily overlaps with respondents’ merits contention that Wal-Mart engages in a pattern or practice of discrimination. The crux of a Title VII inquiry is “the reason for a particular employment decision,” Cooper v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 467 U. S. 867, 876, and respondents wish to sue for millions of employment decisions at once. Without some glue holding together the alleged reasons for those decisions, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members’ claims will produce a common answer to the crucial discrimination question.
• General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U. S. 147, describes the proper approach to commonality. On the facts of this case, the conceptual gap between an individual’s discrimination claim and “the existence of a class of persons who have suffered the same injury,” id., at 157–158, must be bridged by “[s]ignificant proof that an employer operated under a general policy of discrimination,” id., at 159, n. 15. Such proof was absent here.
• Claims for monetary relief may not be certified under Rule 23(b)(2), at least where the monetary relief is not incidental to the requested injunctive or declaratory relief.
• The mere “predominance” of a proper (b)(2) injunctive claim does nothing to justify eliminating Rule 23(b)(3)’s procedural protections, and creates incentives for class representatives to place at risk potentially valid monetary relief claims.

Justice Ginsburg is concerned that the majority imported too much of the "predominance" analysis into the Rule 23(a) requirement that common questions of law or fact must exist:

The Court’s emphasis on differences between class members mimics the Rule 23(b)(3) inquiry into whether common questions “predominate” over individual issues. And by asking whether the individual differences “impede” common adjudication, ante, at 10 (internal quotation marks omitted), the Court duplicates 23(b)(3)’s question whether “a class action is superior” to other modes of adjudication.

Slip op., Ginsburg concurring and dissenting, at 9.  Otherwise, Ginsburg agrees that the class should not have been certified under Rule 23(b)(2) but would  have saved the issue of whether certification was appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3) for the District Court on remand.

The opinion looks as though it will prove to have the greatest impact on cases of this type.  While the Rule 23(a) construction seems to be inconsistent with well-settled standards, the balance of the opinion was predictable, given the massive size of the class.

Court of Appeal finds no privacy interest in residential address

I'm playing catch-up again, which explains the date on this post vis-a-vis the date on the opinion I want to mention.  In Folgelstrom v. Lamps Plus, Inc. (pub. ord. May 20, 2011, mod. June 7, 2011), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Five) reviewed a judgment entered following a successful demurrer to a complaint principally challenging the collection of customer zip codes during credit card transactions.  The super easy part of the decision was the portion where the Court said, "Based on the holding of Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 524 (Pineda), we reverse the judgment and order the trial court to overrule the demurrer to plaintiff's cause of action alleging a violation of the SongBeverly Credit Card Act of 1971 (Credit Card Act) (Civ. Code, § 1747 et seq.)."  Easy.

That's not the interesting part.  That's the part where the plaintiff lucked out.  The interesting part comes when the Court discusses the causes of action that didn't pass muster: invasion of common law and constitutional rights to privacy, and violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, the Unfair Competition Law (UCL).  Discussing the privacy interest in a residential address, the Court said:

Plaintiff offers no explanation of why we should find a privacy interest in plaintiff's address based on the Supreme Court's conclusion that performing a bodily function under the watchful eye of strangers implicates a privacy interest.

Slip op., at 4-5, referencing Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., 7 Cal. 4th 1 (1994).  Just another arrow in the quiver when arguing about whether a plaintiff is entitled to discovery of contact information for putative class members.

Upcoming seminar for young attorneys

On June 25, 2011, I will be speaking at a seminar entitled "Basic Training For Young Lawyers," presented by Attorney Boot Camp, an educational provider created to "1) help young attorneys bridge the gap from a legal education to practical legal skills and 2) to provide all attorneys with specialized training seminars on a wide variety of subjects."

The semindar details are as follows:

• Date: June 25, 2011
• Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
• Location: Southwestern Law School, 3050 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90010
• MCLE: 6 hours, including 1 hour of Ethics

For more on their seminars, visit Attorney Boot Camp.