Jackson Lewis LLP • February 16, 2012

Reversing a $15 million judgment against an employer in a class action for alleged unpaid overtime, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, has held that the trial court’s trial management plan, which used sampling evidence to prove class liability, denied the employer due process by preventing it from defending against over 90% of class claims. Duran v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, Nos. A125557 & A126827 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2012). The Court found the plan “was fatally flawed” and concluded the lower court’s adherence to it denied the employer due process because the court based its evidentiary rulings on the plan, rather than trial testimony. The Court reversed the judgment and ordered the class to be decertified.

Shaw Valenza LLP • January 23, 2012

The United States Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion allows parties to avoid arbitrating class action claims. The Court overturned an earlier California Supreme Court decision, in which the state court held class action waivers in arbitration agreements were unenforceable. The U.S. Supreme Court based its decision on the Federal Arbitration Act's ("FAA") mandate that parties be given the freedom to choose the scope of agreements to arbitrate.

Ogletree Deakins • June 21, 2011

California appellate courts have recently offered some relief to employers issuing wage statements that fail to comply with the state’s hyper-technical content requirements. At the same time, California courts have given the green light to class action lawsuits based on violations of relatively obscure provisions of the state’s Wage Orders. California’s 17 Wage Orders, which are industry or occupation specific, govern workplace conditions ranging from temperature to seating. The good news is that compliance with California’s wage statement and Wage Order requirements can be easily targeted for auditing.