In NAACP of Camden County East v. Foulke Management Corp., New Jersey appellate court finds reasons to distinguish Concepcion

When you stamp down too hard, stuff leaks out the sides.  AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011) was the boot.  Since then, we've been waiting to see what would leak out the sides.  There has been a good deal of discussion about the ramifications of Concepcion.  While Concepcion may make things harder for class actions, the severity of the opinion is also inspiring interesting challenges to arbitration agreements on many fronts.  In NAACP of Camden  County East v. Foulke Management Corp. (August 2, 2011), the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court concluded that convoluted and inconsistent arbitration provisions in an automobile purchase contract could not be enforced, reversing the trial court's order directing the matter to individual arbitration.

The opinion focused heavily on the concurring opinion of Justice Thomas for its conclusion that a confusing consumer contract provision related to arbitration would not be enforced:

Thus, in the aftermath of AT&T Mobility, state courts remain free to decline to enforce an arbitration provision by invoking traditional legal doctrines governing the formation of a contract and its interpretation. Applying such core principles of contract law here, we must decide whether there was mutual assent to the arbitration provisions in the dealership's contract documents. As part of that assessment, we must examine whether the terms of the provisions were stated with sufficient clarity and consistency to be reasonably understood by the consumer who is being charged with waiving her right to litigate a dispute in court.

Slip op., at 31.  The Court found ample evidence for the proposition that the consumer could not have reasonably understood the arbitration provisions.  The Court did take a moment to opine that the trial court was correct when it found that a class action waiver could not be invalidated on public policy grounds.  But the Court then found that the issue was irrelevant to the outcome, since the provisions were unenforcable on formation grounds.

Court of Appeal construes Labor Code section 2810, which authorizes suits against contractors by certain employees of subcontractors

Labor Code section 2810 states that "[a] person or entity may not enter into a contract or agreement for labor or services with a construction, farm labor, garment, janitorial, or security guard contractor, where the person or entity knows or should know that the contract or agreement does not include funds sufficient to allow the contractor to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws or regulations governing the labor or services to be provided."   Section 2810 is a fairly new statute, and one that had not been the subject of any Court of Appeal decision.  But in Castillo v. Toll Brothers, Inc. (July 28, 2011), that changed.  I could tell you that this very exciting opportunity to read an opinion in a truly novel area of law prompted my review of the case.  But, in truth, it was just the defendant's name that caught my eye.

In any event, the trial court, dealing with summary judgment motions and lots of supplemental briefing, evidently had its hands full with a large number of arguments intersecting Labor Code section 2810.  The Court of Appeal commended the trial court's diligent efforts:

The order is a masterful synthesis of a sprawling factual record, reflecting the court's careful work with the parties over the course of several months. We recount the decision in some detail because it forms the foundation for our own ruling.

Slip op., at 6.

A key legal issue addressed in the appeal was determination of whether minimum wage or local prevailing wage sets the standard for insufficiency.  The Court also clarified that actual labor cost, and not the base wage, sets the correct standard.

As to the standard for insufficiency, the Court held that the "minimum wage" sets the standard:

Plaintiffs' position is untenable because there is no general law requiring an employer to pay its workers the average local wage for a particular skill or trade, if that average wage is higher than the legal minimum. Merely to pay less than the prevailing wage therefore violates no law. In the absence of a local, state, or federal law requiring the payment of a wage higher than the legal minimum, a contract cannot be insufficient under section 2810 merely because it does not provide sufficient funds to pay that higher wage, since section 2810 imposes nothing more than compliance with legal requirements.

Slip op., at 14.  (Note: Earlier in the opinion the Court clarified that "minimum wage" would depend upon the industry and wage order at issue in a particular case.)  While this soundbite quote seems clear enough, the opinion goes on for pages, reviewing legislative history and addressing, in detail, the contentions of the plaintiffs regarding the correct measure of sufficiency of funding.

On the second issue, the Court observed that compliance with all laws sets the standard for compliance, which requires analysis of total labor cost, not just the wage that would be paid to employees:

Because an employer is required to pay all of these costs to comply with applicable laws when employing a laborer, it is appropriate to use the total labor cost, rather than the worker‘s wage, in determining sufficiency under section 2810.

Slip op., at 7.

The second half of the opinion addresses (1) the sufficiency of evidence for summary judgement purposes on the issue of whether specific contracts were sufficiently funded, and (2) some over-reaching pre-emption arguments by Toll Brothers.  If that stuff floats your boat, this is a page turner.

Prevailing wage laws apply where a public entity provides a land rent credit to a private entity

Labor Code section 1720, subdivision (a)(1) of the Public Wage Law ("PWL") defines " 'public works'" to mean: "Construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or repair work done under contract and paid for in whole or in part out of public funds . . . ."  When public funds end up in the hands of private entities, it is not always clear whether the PWL applies.  In Hensel Phelps v. San Diego Unified Port District (July 26, 2011), the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division One) had no trouble following the money trail.  The Court considered whether a hotel construction project on land that the San Diego Unified Port District (the Port District) leases to the hotel owner qualified as a public work within the meaning of the PWL where the lease specified that the Port District would provide what the lease refers to as a "rent credit" in the total amount of $46.5 million during the first 11 years of the lease.  Characterizing the "rent credit" as a source of public funds flowing to the private hotel project, the Court concluded that the PWL applied:

In assessing CCCC's argument, we note that no case law exists interpreting the phrase "rents . . . that are . . . reduced, . . . waived, or forgiven" in section 1720, subdivision (b)(4). However, when interpreting a statute, "'"[t]he words of the statute should be given their ordinary and usual meaning and should be construed in their statutory context." [Citation.] If the plain, commonsense meaning of a statute's words is unambiguous, the plain meaning controls.' " (People v. King (2006) 38 Cal.4th 617, 622.) Here, we agree with CCCC that the phrase "rents . . . that are reduced" has a plain everyday meaning that is clear and unambiguous. Under a plain commonsense meaning, rent is reduced when the amount of the rental obligation is set at a certain amount by agreement or by operation of law, and a discount is given from that amount. Under a plain commonsense meaning, rents are waived or forgiven when a party agrees not to impose or demand rents.

Applying this plain commonsense meaning, we agree with CCCC that rents were reduced, waived or forgiven by the Port District. The Lease sets forth a monthly and minimum annual rent amount that OPB is obligated to pay to the Port District. The rent credit constitutes a reduction in that payment obligation. In addition, the 100 percent rent credit during the first 34 to 36 months of the Lease is not only a reduction, but also could be considered a waiver of the rent because no rent at all is due in that period.

Slip op., at 23-24.

Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, scoffs at notion that Concepcion preempts all state unconscionability law

As soon as a blockbuster decision hits the street, zealous litigators work to stretch it as far as it can go.   AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (April 27, 2011) is getting that elastic band treatment right now.  For example, AT&T Mobility (Concepcion) was the subject of a brief aside in Mission Viejo Emergency Medical Associates v. Beta Healthcare Group (July 25, 2007).  In a lawsuit between an insured and the insurer, a motion to compel arbitration of a dispute arising out of the policy was denied by the trial court.  The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for further proceedings regarding a claim of unconscionability.  In the course of the discussion, the Court said:

We invited the parties to provide their comments on the recent United States Supreme Court case, AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) __ U.S. __ [131 S.Ct. 1740] (AT&T). Defendants appear to argue that AT&T essentially preempts all California law relating to unconscionability. We disagree, as the case simply does not go that far. General state law doctrine pertaining to unconscionability is preserved unless it involves a defense that applies "only to arbitration or that derive[s] [its] meaning from the fact that an agreement to arbitrate is at issue." (Id. at p. __ [131 S.Ct. at p.1746].) This simply does not apply here.

Slip op., at 13, n. 4.  The Court then concluded that the asserted unconscionable provisions in the arbitration agreement could be dealt with by the trial court when it considered any motion to sever provisions:

The specific provisions that plaintiffs raise — regarding arbitration in San Francisco, the even split of the cost, and the nonarbitrability of discretionary decisions — can be the subject of a motion to sever before the trial court if the parties cannot reach agreement on the terms of arbitration. (Civ. Code, § 1670.5, subd. (a).) Although we may decide this issue as a matter of first impression (see Higgins v. Superior Court (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1251), given the relative lack of factual development as to these issues, we believe that deference to the trial court would better serve the ends of justice.

Slip op., at 15.

So there you have it from the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three: AT&T Mobility (Concepcion) doesn't preempt all California law on the subject of contractual unconscionability.  They didn't even break a sweat figuring that out.  Interestingly, this is the second decision (Brown v. Ralphs being the first) that asked for supplemental briefing on AT&T Mobility (Concepcion) but issued a decision that is relatively unaffected by it. 

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.