Newly-Published Labor and Employment Cases

Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc.
(CA2/4 B256232 9/26/19)
Wage and Hour Class Action.  In a wage and hour class action alleging violations of Labor Code sections 203, 226.7 and 226, the court of appeal held in part: “(1) at-will, on-call, hourly, nonexempt employees who are paid for on-duty meal periods are also entitled to premium wages if the employer does not have a written agreement that includes an on-duty meal period revocation clause (§ 226.7); (2) unpaid premium wages for meal break violations accrue prejudgment interest at seven percent; (3) unpaid premium wages for meal break violations do not entitle employees to additional remedies pursuant to sections 203 and 226 if their pay or pay statements during the course of the violations include the wages earned for on-duty meal breaks, but not the unpaid premium wages; [and] (4) without section 226 penalties, attorney fees pursuant to section 226, subdivision (e) may not be awarded.”

Williams v. Sacramento River Cats Baseball Club, LLC
(CA3 C086487 9/24/19)
Common Law Failure to Hire.  Finding no common law failure to hire claim (based on race) since there was no prior employment relationship and instead, any claim must proceed under the FEHA.

Head v. Wilkie
(9th Cir. 17-55942 9/5/19)
42 U.S.C. § 1985(2)/Retaliation for Testifying.  Litigant states a cognizable injury under 42 USC § 1985(2) where litigant alleges retaliation based on his testimony in a federal civil rights lawsuit and in his own lawsuit.

Pizzella v. Seward Ship’s Drydock
(9th Cir. 18-71216 9/11/19)
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.  Adopting the Secretary of Labor’s interpretation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.134(d)(l)(iii) and holding that covered employers must evaluate respiratory hazards and determine whether respirators are “necessary to protect the health” of employees when there is a “potential” that employees will be overexposed to contaminants.

ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court
(SC S246711 9/12/19)
PAGA/Civil Penalties.  Penalties recoverable under PAGA for violation of section 558 of the Labor Code do not include the “amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages.”