Episode 31 of The Class Re-Action Podcast is now available

Episode 31 of the Class Re-Action Podcast is now out. We discuss Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC (February 25, 2021). And Killer Robot Dogs. And my eventual Evil Mastermind lair in a secret glacier base.

The answer is "yes," Dynamex does apply retroactively on the interpretation of "suffer or permit to work"

As opinions go these days, the California Supreme Court’s opinion in Vasquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. (Jan. 14, 2021) is a short one, at about 16 pages of actual text. It is also a unanimous opinion. The Ninth Circuit asked the Supreme Court to answer whether the Court’s decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 (Dynamex) applies retroactively. The California Supreme Court concluded that it was retroactive in application:

In concluding that the standard set forth in Dynamex applies retroactively — that is, to all cases not yet final as of the date our decision in Dynamex became final — we rely primarily on the fact that Dynamex addressed an issue of first impression. It did not change a settled rule on which the parties below had relied. No decision of this court prior to Dynamex had determined how the “suffer or permit to work” definition in California’s wage orders should be applied in distinguishing employees from independent contractors. Particularly because we had not previously issued a definitive ruling on the issue addressed in Dynamex, we see no reason to depart from the general rule that judicial decisions are given retroactive effect.

Slip op., at 2. Read the decision if you want to know all about the general rule of retroactive effect and issues of first impression.

Is the decision in Dynamex retroactive?

Tomorrow, in VAZQUEZ (GERARDO) et al. v. JAN-PRO FRANCHISING INTERNATIONAL, INC., Supreme Court Case No. S258191 ((9th Cir. No. 17-16096; 939 F.3d 1045; N.D. of Cal. No. 3:16-cv-05961-WHA), the California Supreme Court will answer the following question for the Ninth Circuit: Does the decision in Dynamex Operations West Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903, apply retroactively?

Episode 24 of the Class Re-Action Podcast is finally available

In the past two months I’ve had the pleasure of a 3:30 a.m. fire evacuation, multiple power outages thanks to the dipsticks in charge of SCE, a multi-week virus of some sort, and an internet outage in our area that left my poor child struggling to survive. Oh, the humanity! All of that combined with a cold Linh had to put us off track. Course corrected. We are back at it, despite some audio equipment problems today. Sigh. I need a new computer that can handle the piggish software from Adobe that I use.

Enjoy Episode 24. We discuss Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc.

UPDATE: I did some more work on the audio. If your audio player already pulled the episode down on publication, you might want to delete it and reload the episode. I extracted more of the echo to make listening a bit less painful.

A quick note on Gonzalez v. San Gabriel Transit, Inc.

In Gonzalez v. San Gabriel Transit, Inc. (October 10, 2019), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Four) reversed and remanded on an appeal from the denial of class certification. Most of the opinion is about the impact of Dynamex, which adopted the “ABC test” after the trial court denied certification. There is some important analysis about what claims are encompassed by the “ABC test,” and the retroactive application. But I’m posting now just to draw attention to a sliver of discussion at the end of the opinion regarding typicality:

Also, SGT maintains that Gonzales’ claims are atypical because, “unlike other class members, [he] never leased a taxi during the class period.” But the class allegations are not premised on having “leased” a vehicle. Rather, Gonzales seeks more generally to certify a class of plaintiffs who “were engaged by [SGT] to drive passengers for hire,” and who “drove” for SGT during the class period, i.e., all “drivers employed by, or formerly employed by [SGT] . . . [during the class period], who were or are classified as independent contractors.” The common allegations of harm suffered by Gonzales and other drivers is that all were misclassified as independent contractors. As such, they were required at their own expense to install equipment and provide tools to access SGT’s dispatch system, and to obtain insurance and perform maintenance, all expenses Gonzales contends should properly be borne by their employer and were denied the benefits of wage order protections.

On remand, SGT must show that the variations in class members’ factual situations are sufficiently wide to defeat class certification. For instance, regardless of a driver’s status as lessee or owner/operator, drivers were charged weekly “lease” fees to perform services under the SGT umbrella. If and to the extent it is important that a driver owned rather than leased a vehicle—which may cause a variation in weekly “lease” rates, insurance, equipment installation fees, or some other business expense—such a difference would likely be a function of the damages to which an individual driver was entitled. That a calculation of individual damages will, at some point, be required does not foreclose the possibility of taking common evidence on the issue of misclassification questions. (Collins v. Rocha (1972) 7 Cal.3d 232, 238.) The overarching inquiry is whether class members were misclassified during the class period. If so, as discussed in the overlapping analysis of commonality above, the class members are entitled to a determination as to whether SGT misclassified them as independent contractors. The fact that individual members of the class have different damages does not preclude class certification. (Sav–On, supra, 34 Cal.4th at pp. 329–330.)

The trial court also alluded to the fact that Gonzales could not demonstrate typicality for the entire class because he never drove LAX or school runs. However, as we have noted, typicality does not require that a class representative have suffered injuries identical to those of other class members. (Martinez v. Joe’s Crab Shack Holdings, supra, 231 Cal.App.4th at p. 375.) Accordingly, the trial court must reevaluate whether the requirements for typicality are satisfied, and whether, given time limitations, the complaint may be amended to add an additional representative plaintiff.

Slip op., at 37-38. This discussion pushes back against a common argument used to try and “thin” a class action down to a subset of the members alleged to be a part of the class. The argument is frequently along the lines of “the plaintiff didn’t work in all of the job positions,” or “the plaintiff didn’t work at all of the locations.” This discussion doesn’t entirely reject such arguments, but it certainly undermines them substantially with a fact pattern that is not particularly unique in wage and hour class actions.

In Voris v. Lampert, the California Supreme Court finally provides the definitive answer to the question of whether wages can be recovered via a conversion tort claim

I recall that in the early 2000’s it was common to see a conversion claim for relief included in a wage & hour complaint, on the theory that the wages owed and unpaid were property of the employee. When this was challenged by demurrer, I observed that the demurrer was successful well over half the time, but there wasn’t a definitive appellate ruling on point. The demurrers that worked would usually focus on the argument that a conversion tort for money had to specifically identify the precise amount in question (essentially, identify the specific cash in question).

Today, in Boris v. Lampert (August 15, 2019) the California Supreme Court answers a question I long ago quit wondering about: whether a conversion claim is cognizable for unpaid wages. In a split 5-2 decision, the Supreme Court said it was not.

The conversion of specific sums of money guided the majority’s analysis:

The employee’s claim is not that the employer has wrongfully exercised dominion over a specifically identifiable pot of money that already belongs to the employee—in other words, the sort of wrong that conversion is designed to remedy. Rather, the employee’s claim is that the employer failed to reach into its own funds to satisfy its debt. Indeed, in some cases of wage nonpayment, the monies out of which employees would be paid may never have existed in the first place. Take, for example,a failed start-up that generates no income and thus finds itself unable to pay its employees. Because the business accounts are empty, there would not be any identifiable monies for the employer to convert. No one would dispute that the start-up is indebted to its employees. But only in the realm of fiction could a court conclude that the business, by failing to earn the money needed to pay wages, has somehow converted that nonexistent money to its own use.

Slip op., at 15. The majority expressed some concern about the consequences of layering tort liability over what has traditionally been a species of contract recovery:

But a conversion claim is an awfully blunt tool for deterring intentional misconduct of this variety.As noted,conversion is a strict liability tort. It does not require bad faith, knowledge, or even negligence; it requires only that the defendant have intentionally done the act depriving the plaintiff of his or her rightful possession. (Moore, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 144, fn. 38; Poggi, supra, 167 Cal. at p.375.) For that reason, conversion liability for unpaid wages would not only reach those who act in bad faith, but also those who make good-faith mistakes—for example, an employer who fails to pay the correct amount in wages because of a glitch in the payroll system or a clerical error. We see no sufficient justification for layering tort liability on top of the extensive existing remedies demanding that this sort of error promptly be fixed.

Slip op., at 25.

I won’t go into great detail on the dissent, but it is pointed, and is well-encapsulated by this passage, which rejects the notion that wage payment recovery is best handled under contract theories:

In California, unpaid wages are not merely contractual obligations to pay a sum. This is because, as we long ago observed, “wages are not ordinary debts.” (In re Trombley (1948) 31 Cal.2d 801, 809, italics added.)

Slip op., Dissent of Cuellar, at 3. This comment is also interesting: “For some time, plaintiffs in wage cases have routinely included a claim for conversion.” Slip op., Dissent of Cuellar, at 7. It is a somewhat feisty dissent. I like it for the conviction. In closing, the dissent observes that it seems illusory to treat theft of stocks as a conversion but deny similar treatment to wages owed.

I’m not 100% settled on where I come down on these competing arguments, but, for purposes of California law, the majority defines where things stand.

Interesting meal and rest break questions certified by Ninth Circuit to the California Supreme Court

This is interesting. On August 1, 2019, the Ninth Circuit certified a pair of questions to the California Supreme Court in Cole v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc. (No. 17-55606) (9th Cir. Aug. 1, 2019). Before we get ahead of ourselves, the California Supreme Court still needs to agree to take up the certified questions. They do so at an exceedingly high rate, but it isn’t a done deal…yet. So, what about those questions? The questions posed are as follows:

1.Does the absence of a formal policy regarding meal and rest breaks violate California law?

2.Does an employer’s failure to keep records for meal and rest breaks taken by its employees create a rebuttable presumption that the meal and rest breaks were not provided?

Slip op., at 4. The case arises in the context of the operation of truck drivers working for a shipping company. The discussion of the reason for the certification clarifies where the Ninth Circuit seeks guidance:

The California Supreme Court did not directly address in Brinker whether the absence of a policy providing for meal and rest breaks constitutes a violation of California labor law. However, in Duran v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 325 P.3d 916,933 n.28 (Cal. 2014), the California Supreme Court observed that “[i]n regard to other wage and hour claims, some courts have held that the absence of a uniform policy supports [class] certification if such a policy is required by law. We express no opinion on this question.” (emphasis in the original).

Slip op., at 11. After noting Benton and Bradley, the Court also observed the concurring comment in Brinker:

In Brinker, Justice Werdegar noted that “[i]f an employer’s records show no meal period for a given shift over five hours, a rebuttable presumption arises that the employee was not relieved of duty and no meal period was provided.” 273 P.3d at 545 (Werdegar, J., concurring).

Slip op. at 12.

If the California Supreme Court takes up the questions, I will be happy to handle action on the outcome for a 5% vig. Kidding. 10%. Still kidding.

The Class Re-Action Podcast is finally back, with Episode 20

We finally got around to getting Episode 20 of the Class Re-Action Podcast out. Fly! Be free! We are tweaking the format a bit to see if it helps with publication frequency. First, shows will be shorter - in the 20-30 minute range. Second, “special guests” will be, well, special. We aren’t going to hold off on publishing a show because invited guests are too busy to record. We promise to try to publish consistently, rain or shine. Mostly shine, we hope.

How long do "on-duty" meal periods have to be? 30 minutes.

This really feels like the setup for a bad joke that only employment lawyers in California would get. Question: How long does an “on-duty” meal period have to be? Answer: 30 minutes. Follow-up: But….it’s “on-duty.” Put your hand down. I’m not calling on you. In L’Chaim House, Inc. v. Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (July 31, 2019), the Court of Appeal (First Appellate District, Division One), the Court was called upon to review a wage and hour citation by the DLSE. The Court summarized, “On appeal, L’Chaim claims that under the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) wage order, it may require its employees to work “on-duty” meal periods that, unlike periods when employees are ‘relieved of all duty,’ do not need to be at least 30 minutes long.” (Slip op., at 1.)

The Court’s discussion was more interesting than you might think, since the Court necessarily had to explain the difference between on-duty and off-duty meal periods, and what events can transform one into the other. This led to the Court’s rejection of the appellant’s position:

What L’Chaim misunderstands is that an on-duty meal period is not the functional equivalent of no meal period at all. On-duty meal periods are an intermediate category requiring more of employees than off-duty meal periods but less of employees than their normal work. Recognizing this, the trial court stated that even if L’Chaim’s employees were not entitled to “an uninterrupted meal period,” they “may at least be afforded 30[] minutes of limited duty enabling them to eat their meal in relative peace.” L’Chaim attacks the notion that its “employees may be given ‘limited duty’ while on a meal break” as creating “several absurd consequences.” According to L’Chaim, because employees do not clock out for on-duty meal periods, there is no way to track the length of those periods. In addition, “the creation of a new ‘limited duty’ requirement to [Wage Order No. 5, subdivision 11(E)] would force employers to delineate which tasks an employee is expected to perform during his or her on-duty meal period,” which L’Chaim claims “would be difficult and even potentially dangerous for the residents.”

But any such practical challenges are inherent in providing “on-duty meal periods” at all, not just periods of a particular length. Moreover, the question presented here is whether an on-duty meal period must be at least 30 minutes long, not how courts might evaluate the adequacy of the period under different factual scenarios. Thus, while we do not address what constitutes an acceptable on-duty meal period in the context of this case, what we can say is that employees of 24-hour residential care facilities for seniors are unambiguously entitled to “on-duty meal periods” under subdivision 11(E). L’Chaim’s interpretation would effectively read that requirement out of Wage Order No. 5.

Slip op., at 5. If this still doesn’t convince you, the Court made one final observation that seems pretty solid:

Finally, even if any doubt remained, we agree with the DLSE that section 512 compels the same conclusion. Under that statute, which L’Chaim does not address in its briefing, an employer is prohibited from “employ[ing] an employee for a work period of more than five hours per day without providing the employee with a meal period of not less than 30 minutes,” unless the employee works no more than six hours in a day and agrees to waive the meal period. (§ 512, subd. (a).) Although section 512 contains exceptions for workers in several industries, none of them apply here. And although the IWC has broad authority to “adopt or amend working condition orders with respect to . . . meal periods . . . for any workers in California consistent with the health and welfare of those workers,” at all relevant times—including when subdivision 11(E) was added to Wage Order No. 5—that authority has been specifically limited “as provided in Section 512.”

Slip op., at 7. The Wage Orders cannot negate Labor Code provisions. The balance of the decision is worth a quick read if you practice in this area.

The Ninth Circuit is interested in learning whether the California Supreme Court thinks Dynamex applies retroactively

Here’s a tiny little nugget of interest. Today, in Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. (9th Cir. July 22, 2019), the Ninth Circuit issued an Order granting a Petition for Panel Rehearing. That’s not the interesting part. The stated plan to certify a question to the California Supreme Court is, however, interesting:

The opinion in the above-captioned matter filed on May 2, 2019, and published at 923 F.3d 575, is WITHDRAWN. A revised disposition and an order certifying to the California Supreme Court the question of whether Dynamex Ops. W. Inc. v. Superior Court, 416 P.3d 1 (Cal. 2018), applies retroactively will be filed in due course.

Order, at 2. Do you feel like it never stops? That there is never a moment when you can say, “This is the wage and hour law of California.”? I do.