MAGADIA V. WAL-MART ASSOCS., INC., NO. 19-16184 (9th CIR. MAY 28, 2021)
In a class action lawsuit and a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) lawsuit for alleged California Labor Code violations of lunch breaks and payrolls, the 9th District overturned the lower court ruling against Wal-Mart, stating that: the PAGA lawsuit continues for not personally suffering a meal violation violation and because PAGA does not allow an uninjured claimant to make a claim; (2) in relation to payroll entitlement, while Section 226 (a) (9) of the California Labor Code requires employers to list “the equivalent number of hours worked at any hourly rate applicable during the pay period” is an overtime adjustment that must be calculated retrospectively no “effective hourly rate” within the meaning of Section 226 (a) (9); and (3) that Wal-Mart complied with Section 226 (a) (6) when it did not list pay period data in Statements of Final Pays for employees who were terminated in the middle of the pay period because those pay periods were requested on the dates final pay slips given at the end of the next bi-monthly pay period. The panel overturned the district court’s judgment and claim for damages on the meal-break lawsuit, instructing it to refer him back to the state court, and overturned the judgment and claim for damages in the Section 226 (a) lawsuit, instructing a judgment for whale. to adopt -Mart.
GENERAL ATOMICS V. SUPERIOR CT. OF SAN DIEGO CNTY., D078211 (CAL.CT.APP, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, MAY 28, 2021)
In an alleged class action lawsuit and a PAGA lawsuit for alleged violation of California Labor Code Section 226 (a) by alleged failure to list the correct rate for overtime wages, the California Court of Appeals overturned the court’s denial of General Atomics’ summary judgment because the overtime rate was given as 0.5 times the regular wage rate for employees, the pay slips clearly contained the overtime rate and were compatible with 226 (a).
Section 226 (a) requires an employer to provide “an accurate, detailed, written statement” to its employees, including, among other things, “all hourly rates in effect during the pay period”. General Atomics’ pay slips “identif[ied] the standard or contractual hourly rates with the total number of hours worked at each tariff ”and then separately identified 0.5 times the overtime allowance with the total number of hours worked at that rate, which is“ result ”[ed] in the correct total wage. “So the court decided that”[i]In this context, 0.5 times the overtime rate is the “applicable hourly rate” for these hours “and the rates have been” clearly identified “in accordance with Section 229 (a). The court concluded that “given the complexities of determining overtime pay in various contexts, the format chosen by General Atomics adequately conveys the information required by law” and “allows employees to easily determine whether their wages are correct using simple math.” were calculated “. meets the requirements of Section 226. Accordingly, the court granted General Atomics’ motion for power of attorney.
CAL. LKW-ASS’N V. BONTA, NO. 20-55106 (9 CIR. 28 APRIL 2021), REQUEST FOR SAMPLE EN BANC REJECTED ON 21 JUNE 2021
The California Trucking Association (CTA) has challenged California Assembly Bill 5 (AB-5) 1 on the grounds that prong “B” of the ABC test by prohibiting the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) against laws that on the “price, route or service of a road transport company. . . in relation to the carriage of goods. “While the lower court approved and ordered the enforcement of AB-5 against motor vehicles, 2 the 9th District overturned the injunction and ruled that AB-5 is a” generally applicable “labor law, subject to motor vehicles because AB-5 is the transport company’s relationship with its employees, not its consumers. The court argued that AB-5’s potential increase in the cost of business for motor companies through AB-5 is only an indirect, distant or weak relationship with prices, routes and costs services offered. The court thus distinguished AB-5 from laws that “compel”[] a motor vehicle carrier to some outcome in its relationship with consumers “and” bind the carrier to a certain price, route or service and impede competitive market forces within the industry “, which can be anticipated according to the FAAAA. The decision helped split the circle over whether the FAAAA will anticipate the ABC test, with the First Circuit hitting the Massachusetts ABC test for preemptive purposes. On June 21, 2021, the 9th District rejected the CTA’s petition for a dress rehearsal with 2: 1 votes.
CAL / OSHA TEMPORARY EMERGENCY STANDARDS (JUNE 17, 2021)
The California Department for Occupational Safety and Health (Cal / OSHA) has revised its interim COVID-19 prevention standards for emergencies to reflect recent guidelines from the California Department of Health (CDPH) related to rising vaccination rates. The revised standards took effect on June 17, 2021 and include the following:
Fully vaccinated employees do not need to be offered testing or be banned from work after close contact with an infected person unless they have COVID-19 symptoms.
Fully vaccinated employees are not required to wear face covers except in certain outbreak situations and in environments where CDPH requires everyone to wear them. Employers must document the vaccination status of fully vaccinated workers if they do not wear face coverings indoors.
Employees, regardless of vaccination status, are not required to wear face coverings outdoors, except for certain employees during outbreaks.
Employees are expressly allowed to wear face covering without fear of retaliation from employers.
Physical distancing requirements have been removed unless an employer determines there is a risk and for certain employees in the event of major outbreaks.
Employees who are not fully vaccinated can request respirators for voluntary use from their employer free of charge and without fear of retaliation from the employer.
Workers who are not fully vaccinated and who have symptoms of COVID-19 must be offered a test by their employer.
Accommodation and transportation provided by the employer are exempt from the regulations in which all employees are fully vaccinated.
Employers need to review preliminary guidelines for indoor ventilation, filtration and air quality.
Employers need to evaluate ventilation systems to maximize outside air and increase filter efficiency, as well as evaluate the use of additional air cleaning systems.
Comments are closed.