Class Certification Rules Clarified: Harder for Plaintiffs to Certify Classes

On September 3, 2013, in Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., the Ninth Circuit clarified the restrictions on class certification imposed by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes. The net effect of this ruling is to make it harder for plaintiffs to certify classes.

In Wang, named plaintiffs were employees of Chinese Daily News (“CDN”) who alleged that they had been made to work more than eight hours per day and more than forty hours per week. They also alleged that they were wrongfully denied overtime compensation, meal and rest breaks, and accurate and itemized wage statements. More ›

It just got Easier to Remove Class Actions

In Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Services LLC the Ninth Circuit cited recent United States Supreme Court precedent to make it more difficult for class action plaintiffs to pursue their claims in state court. More ›

Employer’s Right to Compel Arbitration, even Where Demand Is Delayed, Affirmed By Ninth Circuit

In Richards v. Ernst & Young, The Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of state wage and hour claims asserted by a former employee.

The District Court had determined that defendant had waived its right to arbitration by failing to assert that right as a defense. The Ninth Circuit reversed the judgment on the following grounds.

As the Court noted preliminarily, waiver of the contractual right to arbitration is not favored and, therefore, any party arguing waiver of a contractual right to arbitration bears a heavy burden. More ›

No Disability Discrimination Where Employee Cannot Competently Perform Job, Ninth Circuit Holds

In Lawler v. Montblac North American LLC, the plaintiff, Cynthia Lawler, a store manager at a boutique retail store, was diagnosed with psoriatic arthritis.  Lawler initiated the action after Defendant employer terminated her employment.

Lawler asserted four claims: (1) disability discrimination, (2) retaliation, (3) harassment, and (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress. The first three causes of action were brought under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).

The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendant as to all causes of action, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. More ›