Following Supreme Court Decision, It's High Time for Illinois Employers to Review Workplace Biometric Privacy Issues

With the Illinois Supreme Court unanimously ruling that employees need not plead or prove a traditional injury or adverse harm in order to prosecute a claim under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) (see, Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., 2019 IL 123186 (Jan. 25, 2019)), the time is now for Illinois employers to review their workplace policies for biometric privacy issues. More ›

U.S. Supreme Court Puts the Brakes on Mandatory Arbitration, Holds Transportation Workers Exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act

The United States Supreme Court recently handed workers a rare victory in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira. The Supreme Court ruled that transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce—including those labeled as independent contractors—are exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and thus cannot be compelled to undergo mandatory arbitration.  As a result of this decision, employers in the transportation industry will have to review their existing arbitration policies and assess whether or not they comply with applicable local, state, and federal laws. More ›

Clarifying the SCOTUS American Pipe Decision: Pending Motion for Class Certification does not toll Limitations Period

The United States Supreme Court recently handed the defense bar a useful tool in stemming the tide of class action lawsuits. In the area of employment law, claims for violations of federal wage and hour laws, violations of state and local regulations governing employees, and systemic workplace discrimination are prone to class action claims. More ›

U.S. Supreme Court Rules Employers Cannot Avoid Class Actions By Offering Complete Relief to Plaintiffs

In a 5-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, holding that an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment providing for an individual plaintiff complete relief does not moot a class action complaint, resolving a split among circuits. However, the Court limited its holding by declining to address “whether the result would be different if a defendant deposits the full amount of the plaintiff's individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in that amount.” The Court’s dissenting opinions and concurring opinions suggest actual tender would moot the plaintiff’s claim. More ›

California Employers Beware: cell Phones Present Another area for Class Action Potential

In August 2014, the California State Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit, Division 2) decided in Cochran v. Schawan's Home Service that employers were responsible for reimbursing employees for the business use of personal cell phones. Most cell phone users have unlimited minute plans so the question before the court was whether reimbursement was warranted even if the employee did not incur an extra expense. The answer: reimbursement is always required. The California Supreme Court has denied a petition to review this case so this holding stands. Employers with employees in the state of California should be mindful of this decision and take steps to implement policies which comply with the law (e.g., provide company cell phones, provide for reimbursement of actual cell phone usage for business-related calls, or provide a flat amount of reimbursement per month per employee).

Hinshaw attorneys are available to assist employers implement and enforce such policies.

Must Employers Reimburse Employees for work Calls on Private Cell Phones?

In Cochran v. Schwan’s Home Service, Inc., the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District dealt with the question of whether employers are required to reimburse employees for work-related calls made on their personal cell phones. More ›

Rite aid Cashiers can Proceed with Class Action

In Hall v. Rite Aid Corp., the Fourth Appellate District reversed the trial court’s decertification of a putative class of cashiers who challenged their employer’s policy of requiring them to stand while checking out customers.

The case is the latest in a series of California appellate opinions holding that a determination on class certification must focus on the plaintiff’s theory of liability — not the merits of the underlying allegations. More ›

California Restaurant Managers get Second Chance at Class Action

In Martinez v. Joe’s Crab Shack Holdings, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District reversed an order denying class certification to a group of managerial restaurant employees allegedly misclassified as exempt.

The case was brought by lower-level managers at Joe’s Crab Shack restaurants throughout California who complained that they performed many of the same tasks as hourly employees but did not qualify for overtime pay due to their managerial status. More ›

Courts may Certify Class Claims Where Damages Differ

In Benton v. Telecom Network Specialists, Inc., the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District affirmed that employee wage and hour and meal break cases may be suitable for class certification even where employees experience diverse damages.

The case supports the proposition that courts considering whether common issues predominate for class certification purposes must focus on plaintiffs’ theory of liability and not on whether class members will have to prove their damages individually. More ›

Certification of meal Break Employment Class Affirmed by Ninth Circuit

In Abdullah v. U.S. Security Associates Inc., the Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by certifying a meal break subclass, defined as all past and present employees who (a) worked more than six hours, (b) were not provided a meal break, and (3) were not compensated for the meal break.

Plaintiffs were former employees of USSA, a private security guard company. As a condition of employment, all employees were required to sign an agreement to take their meals on duty, rather then having a meal break. Plaintiffs sought to maintain a class action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, alleging that the employer’s policy of requiring employees to work through their legally mandated meal periods made USSA liable for paying compensation for missed meal periods pursuant to California Labor Code 226.7 and the applicable wage order. The district court certified the subclass pursuant to FRCP rule 23(b)(3), which defendant challenged this ruling. More ›