Authored by Christopher A. Crosman

We are excited to announce the 16th edition of Seyfarth Shaw’s publication Litigating California Wage & Hour and Labor Code Class ActionsAs in previous editions, this publication reviews the most commonly filed wage and hour and Labor Code class and representative claims and the development of the law over the last several years, and discusses and analyzes the various types of wage & hour class actions that affect many California employers. This new edition has been updated to reflect the latest developments in the law and promises to delight.

Download the publication using this convenient link today!

Authored by Rob Whitman

Seyfarth Synopsis: Unpaid interns for Hearst magazines have been rebuffed again in their effort to be declared eligible to receive wages under the FLSA and the New York Labor Law.

In an August 24, 2016 ruling, Judge J. Paul Oetken of the Southern District of New York held that six interns, who worked for Marie Claire, Seventeen, Cosmopolitan, Esquire, and Harper’s Bazaar, were not employees as a matter of law and granted summary judgment to Hearst. After reviewing each of their circumstances individually, the court held:

These interns worked at Hearst magazines for academic credit, around academic schedules if they had them, with the understanding that they would be unpaid and were not guaranteed an offer of paid employment at the end of the internships. They learned practical skills and gained the benefit of job references, hands-on training, and exposure to the inner workings of industries in which they had each expressed an interest.

The six named plaintiffs were the only ones remaining after the Second Circuit, in July 2015, denied their bid for class and collective certification. The court in that decision also articulated a new set of factors for determining whether unpaid interns at for-profit companies are “trainees” (who are not entitled to compensation) or “employees” (who must receive minimum wage and overtime premiums).

The Second Circuit’s decision adopted the “primary beneficiary” test to determine internship status—i.e., whether the “tangible and intangible benefits provided to the intern are greater than the intern’s contribution to the employer’s operation.” Applying that test to the Hearst interns, Judge Oetken concluded, “[w]hile [the six plaintiffs’] internships involved varying amounts of rote work and could have been more ideally structured to maximize their educational potential, each Plaintiff benefited in tangible and intangible ways from his or her internship, and some continue to do so today as they seek jobs in fashion and publishing.”

Among the factors he relied on: the relatively brief duration of the internships, typically limited to college semesters or summer breaks; the interns’ opportunities for observation and learning, such as “Cosmo U,” a program in which senior editors spoke about their career paths; and the receipt of or opportunity for academic credit.

Aside from its detailed discussion of the facts of the plaintiffs’ internships, the court’s decision, Wang v. The Hearst Corporation, is notable for two reasons:

  1. It shows the practical impact of a denial of class and collective certification. Although the court addressed the six named plaintiffs’ claims in a single opinion, it was effectively a series of rulings on each intern’s individualized circumstances. As the court noted, some of the factors—such as the receipt of college credit for the internships—weighed differently for the different plaintiffs. But in the end, the result for each of them, given the “totality of the circumstances” in their particular cases, was the same.
  2. The court’s decision applied equally to the plaintiffs’ claims under the FLSA and the NY Labor Law. This issue was left somewhat unsettled after the Second Circuit’s 2015 decision, which noted the similarities in the definitions of “employee” under the two statutes but did not explicitly say that the ruling pertained to both. Judge Oetken, following the earlier lead of a Southern District colleague, held that his ruling decided the claims under federal and NY law.

The Hearst decision is not the first to grant summary judgment under the Second Circuit’s factors. In March 2016, a Southern District Judge found that an intern for the now-late Gawker website was properly treated as such and was not entitled to wages. Despite the positive trend, these cases are highly fact-driven and do not foreclose the possibility that interns will be deemed to be employees, nor should they make for-profit employers complacent about not paying interns. But they signal that, where interns have a bona fide learning experience in coordination with their academic pursuits, they need not be paid as a matter of law.

Co-authored by Rob Whitman, Adam Smiley, and Nadia Bandukda

A federal judge has sided with Gawker in the media company’s legal battle with a former unpaid intern who claimed that he should have been compensated as an employee. On March 29th, Judge Alison Nathan in the Southern District of New York granted Gawker’s motion for summary judgment and found that the Second Circuit’s “primary beneficiary” test tipped in favor of Gawker, meaning that the plaintiff, Aulistar Mark (“Mark”), was a “bona fide” intern not entitled to compensation under the FLSA. The Court also denied Mark’s motion for class certification as moot.

Mark interned with the company’s videogame blog, and assisted in “taking photos and videos, editing images, researching, writing and editing posts and articles, and conducting interviews” for the blog’s editors and writers. The blog published 34 articles written by Mark.

The court concluded that Mark, and not Gawker, was the primary beneficiary of his internship. Several factors were key to this decision:

  • Mark received academic credit and his internship was tied to a formal education program, in that his university required that he take a class to accompany his internship, write several papers about the internship, submit a “learning agreement” regarding the internship, and that his intern supervisor submit evaluations of Mark’s performance.
  • Mark’s editor at the blog provided mentorship and various opportunities to learn journalism skills that were not offered to full-time employees, who were expected to already possess such skills. In particular, the editor worked with Mark over many weeks editing a large-scale reported story that was the “capstone” of his internship. Mark even admitted that his relationship with this editor was similar to his relationship with his journalism school editor.
  • While Mark’s research and written work had the potential to displace paid employees for “part of the time,” there was no evidence that Gawker “in fact used interns to displace paid employees, that interns had skills comparable to…expected employees, or that [without interns], Gawker would have hired more employees.”

In reaching its conclusion, the court focused on “the benefits to the student while still considering whether the manner in which the employer implements the internship program takes unfair advantage or is otherwise abusive towards the intern.” It found that Gawker did not take unfair advantage of Mark, and that Mark’s work benefitted him as an intern “as least as much” as it did Gawker by giving him the opportunity to practice the job he was training for and gave him published articles for his portfolio.

One other notable aspect of the decision: the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over another intern’s claims under the New York Labor Law and dismissed these allegations without prejudice. This leaves open the possibility that a New York State court would apply a standard other than Glatt (e.g. the NYSDOL 11-factor test), although we think state courts will give Glatt significant if not conclusive deference.

internship blog image 8.jpgCo-authored by Robert Whitman and Adam Smiley

While most New Yorkers rode out last weekend’s blizzard by binge watching television or enjoying playoff football, three Second Circuit judges apparently spent their time more productively, as the court on Monday issued an amended decision in its landmark ruling from last summer on unpaid internships.

As we have previously reported, the court’s July 2015 decision in Glatt v. Fox Searchlight held that the “primary beneficiary” test should be used to decide whether unpaid interns should be deemed employees or trainees. The court also held that this test requires highly individualized inquiries—a conclusion that may deal a blow to plaintiffs’ abilities to obtain class or collective certification in these cases.

In its amended decision, the Court added a third “salient feature” to the primary beneficiary test, holding that the “intern-employer relationship should not be analyzed in the same manner as the standard employer-employee relationship because the intern enters into the relations with the expectation of receiving educational or vocational benefits that are not necessarily expected with all forms of employment.” The court also inserted a statement that its analysis of the intern v. trainee question is limited to internships and not to “training programs in other contexts.”

Later in the amended opinion, after the listing of the seven non-exhaustive factors that determine the “primary beneficiary” of an internship, the court noted that the “touchstone” of its analysis was the economic reality of the relationship. In light of this, the court said, it is relevant to consider evidence “about an internship program as a whole rather than the experience of a specific intern.” This is an important addition because it may render the specific experiences of a named plaintiff less important in the overall “primary beneficiary” analysis and make it easier for an employer to satisfy the test even if a particular manager did not administer a compliant program.

The court also modified its analysis of the previously vacated Rule 23 claims under New York law. It deleted the prior reference to “individualized” inquiries driving the denial of class certification, and replaced it with “highly context-specific” inquiries regarding an internship program as the barrier to a finding of commonality. The holding now reads as follows: “[T]he question of an intern’s employment status is a highly context-specific inquiry. [E]vidence that the defendants received an immediate advantage from the internship program will not help to answer whether the internship program could be tied to an education program, whether and what type of training the internship program provided, whether the internship program continued beyond the primary period of learning, or the many other questions that are relevant in this case.”

After the court issued its first decision in Glatt last July, the plaintiffs filed a petition for en banc review. Despite the denial of en banc review in Wang v. Hearst Corp., the companion case involving Hearst interns, the Glatt petition has remained pending. We suspect that this amended opinion reflects a compromise by the court’s judges to avoid a potentially contentious review by the full court. We now expect a decision on the en banc petition to be issued soon.

Although the court has now revised the “primary beneficiary” to apply only to intern cases, the Glatt decision still has broad implications for employers that use unpaid interns. In particular, courts within the Second Circuit are still required to take a holistic view of an internship program, and the hurdles to class and collective certification remain in place. As always, however, employers should conduct a careful analysis of their internship programs to ensure full compliance with any wage and hour obligations and protect themselves from future litigation.

Authored by Noah Finkel

As noted by this blog on several occasions, including most recently here, the U.S. Supreme Court and several appellate courts have grappled with the question of whether and to what extent a defendant facing a class or collective action can moot a case by offering a plaintiff complete relief under Rule 68 or in a settlement offer. Today the Supreme Court made clear in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez that an unaccepted offer of complete relief under Rule 68 does not render a case moot and thus does not end a purported class or collective action.

To be sure, the Court’s ruling narrows the grounds on which a defendant can obtain an early dismissal of a class or collective action by making a Rule 68 offer of complete relief to the class representative. As our colleagues explain here, the Court has now held that if a class representative rejects or declines to accept the offer, then “basic principles of contract law” mean that the offer has no force, and the class representative’s claim is not mooted. Indeed, under the express terms of Rule 68, an unaccepted offer of judgment expires after 14 days. (If an offer is accepted, then that may be a different story—particularly if the case is a collective action and not a class action, as discussed here.)

But does this make the mootness maneuver moot? No—and especially not in wage-hour cases, where in several classes of cases a defendant-employer readily can determine the maximum amount of a class representative’s claim for damages. As this blog has explained here, there is a better way for a defendant-employer to moot a class action, and that is by making a tender of complete relief to the plaintiff/class representative without reliance on Rule 68. Do not even reference a settlement agreement or release. Rather, make the tender unconditional. As many courts have held, if the plaintiff/class representative has been provided with all relief sought in the lawsuit for him or herself, and this is done before a class is certified or opt-in plaintiffs join a collective action, then there is no longer a live controversy between the parties on the merits and the court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. Indeed, today’s opinion expressly noted that “[w]e need not, and do not, now decide 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 … .”

What about the attorneys’ fees that the plaintiff’s counsel incurred in bringing the putative class or collective action? Depending on the statute, those might not need to be included. Under the FLSA, for example, only a “prevailing plaintiff” is entitled to attorneys’ fees, and if a case is dismissed as moot, the plaintiff did not prevail.

A tender of complete relief is not for every case. There are several reasons why a defendant employer would not seek to moot a wage-hour case by making such a payment. Many regular-rate cases, failure to pay overtime or minimum wage claims, tip credit matters, certain off-the-clock theories, and other pleadings that contain specifics on the amount of alleged underpayments may be amenable to calculating a plaintiff’s maximum recovery, but calculating “complete relief” in many wage-hour cases may not be so clear. In other types of cases, the amount needed to pay complete relief may be calculable but exorbitant. And in all cases, there is a risk that other potential plaintiffs may be waiting in the wings, and a tender of full relief to the first current or former employee who files a claim can lead others to make similar claims—leading to an endless and expensive game of whack-a-mole. Ultimately, each employer in each case needs to decide the propriety of the mootness maneuver on a case-by-case basis, weighing the cost of an offer (or offers) of complete relief against the cost of defending a collective or class action. As Justice Kagan warned in her dissent in Genesis Healthcare v. Symczyk—the Supreme Court’s most recent foray into the mootness issue before today—“don’t try this at home.”

Authored by Michael W. Kopp

In a case that is certain to provide an important sequel to the Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes and Comcast Corp. v. Behrend decisions, the Supreme Court will hear argument next week on Tyson Foods Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, to address (1) the use of statistical averaging in class actions to prove liability and damages, and (2) whether courts may certify a class that includes individuals with no injury.

Tyson Foods is important because it likely will set further limits on use of statistical proof in Rule 23(b)(3) cases, and address for the first time the standard for certification of collective actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The road to the Supremes. Tyson Foods reached the Supreme Court by way of a divided Eighth Circuit opinion affirming a $5.8 million verdict on an off-the-clock class claim. Plaintiffs claimed that Tyson’s Iowa meat processing facility had not paid over 3,000 plant workers for the time they spent changing in and out of various types of work gear and walking to and from the production line. The district court found there was a common question as to whether the challenged time was compensable, and certified the case as a collective action as to the FLSA claim, and as Rule 23 class action as to the state law wage and hour claims.

Tyson unsuccessfully attempted to decertify the class, and argued neither liability nor damages were “capable of classwide resolution … in one stroke,” as required by Dukes. Tyson pointed to variations in the type and amount of equipment worn by employees in the hundreds of classifications at issue, and highlighted the disparities in the routines and amount of time employees spent on these tasks. Unpersuaded, the district court permitted a nine-day jury trial on the class claims, where plaintiffs used an expert’s model to calculate the “average” time employees spent on the donning, doffing and walking activities at issue. These average activity times were then extrapolated to the class members. Although plaintiffs’ expert conceded that the actual times for these activities varied considerably – and more than 200 class members suffered no injury at all – the jury nonetheless awarded a lump sum verdict, to be divided among all class members.

Divided approaches to Dukes. The divided Eighth Circuit panel’s majority opinion and dissent highlight the inconsistent approaches lower courts have taken in interpreting Dukes. The panel majority found that there was a common question concerning whether the activities were compensable under the FLSA and state law, and that plaintiffs had “prove[n] liability for the class as a whole, using employee time records to establish individual damages.”

The dissent took the majority to task for ignoring the considerable differences in donning and doffing times, employee routes to their work stations, the amount of time Tyson allotted for such activities, shortened time shifts, “and a myriad of other relevant factors.” The dissent highlighted the fact that a rigorous inquiry into Rule 23’s requirements may overlap with the merits, and that in a wage-hour case the merits may be intertwined with damages questions. Using statistical models to gloss over differences pertinent to both liability and damages violated Dukes’ requirement that the action generate “common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation” and its prohibition against “trial by formula.”

For example, an employee who clocks 38 hours and alleges another 1.5 hours of off-the-clock work does not have a claim under federal law so long as he is paid no less than minimum wage for all of his work time taking into account his uncompensated time. If he claims a total of 2.5 hours of off-the-clock work, however, he would allege an FLSA violation that, if proven, would result in an hour of pay at the appropriate overtime rate. In such cases (and commonly for wage-hour claims), determining liability and damages is an inherently intertwined inquiry requiring the same evidence. For this reason, the common issues involved in determining liability would predominate over any individualized damages issues under Rule 23(b)(3), and bifurcation of a liability-only class would be inappropriate.

Why This Case Matters. First, the Supreme Court will have the opportunity to clarify the extent of Dukes’ limitations on the use of statistical techniques to establish damages and liability under Rule 23. Second, the case has particular significance in the wage and hour context, because it provides the opportunity for the Supreme Court to weigh in for the first time as to the standards that apply to certification of FLSA collective actions. Third, the case provides the opportunity for the court to address Tyson Foods’ constitutional argument that an award of monetary damages to uninjured class members is impermissible.

Stay Tuned … This case is set for oral argument on Tuesday, November 10, so be on the lookout for a follow up blog post here when a decision is reached.

Authored by Christopher A. Crosman

We are excited to announce the 15th edition of Seyfarth Shaw’s publication Litigating California Wage & Hour and Labor Code Class Actions. As in previous editions, the publication discusses and analyzes the most commonly filed wage & hour and Labor Code class and representative claims, the development of the law over the last several years, and the various wage & hour class action issues that affect many California employers. The new edition has been updated to reflect the latest developments in the law and promises to delight.

Download the searchable, 143-page publication using this convenient link today!

Seyfarth Shaw has updated its definitive guide to the litigation of wage and hour lawsuits. Co-authored by three Seyfarth partners and edited by the chair of the firm’s national wage-hour practice, Wage & Hour Collective and Class Litigation is an essential resource for practitioners. The unique treatise provides insight into litigation strategy through all phases of wage & hour lawsuits, and is now updated with additional significant cases through early 2015.

Among many other topics, the treatise’s authors examine how employers in multiple industries are targeted for wage-hour lawsuits and provide substantive, procedural and practical considerations that determine the outcome of such actions in today’s courts. Principally designed to assist employment litigators and in-house counsel, the treatise also proves useful to senior management seeking to fend off wage-hour actions before they strike.

Authors Noah Finkel, Brett Bartlett and Andrew Paley, who practice in the firm’s Chicago, Atlanta and Los Angeles offices respectively, as well as Boston-based Richard Alfred, who is Chair of Seyfarth’s National Wage & Hour Litigation Practice Group, are each experienced wage and hour litigators who have handled numerous collective and class actions asserting violations under both state and federal law.

Wage & Hour Collective and Class Litigation covers the complex rules surrounding all types of wage and hour lawsuits. These include claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, claims under state wage and hour laws, or hybrid cases involving both, as well as special issues involving government contractors. It provides readers guidance around: how to respond to a wage and hour complaint; what to consider when deciding whether to remove a case to federal court; how to assess the particular merits of a claim; whether to settle; how to oppose plaintiffs’ motion to facilitate notice for conditional certification; what kinds of affirmative defenses are best; and how to tilt the odds in favor of the defense.

In its fifth update to the treatise, Wage & Hour Collective and Class Litigation features discussions of recent decisions from appellate and trial courts and their effect on wage and hour litigation, emphasizing the following developments:

  • The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk in which the Court held that time spent by employees going through anti-theft metal detectors at the end of their shifts was not compensable because it was not integral or indispensable to the employees’ principal activities.
  • The United States Supreme Court’s decision to hear Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, a case that will provide the Supreme Court with the opportunity to clarify the extent to which Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes applies to FLSA collective actions.
  • Federal District Court decisions refusing to follow the California Supreme Court’s decision in Iskanian and ruling that the FAA preempts California’s rule against the waiver of PAGA claims.
  • The Ninth Circuit joining the First, Second and Third Circuits in requiring allegations that a plaintiff worked more than 40 hours in a given work week without being compensated for those additional hours to avoid a motion to dismiss, and the Eighth Circuit requiring proof of such conduct to avoid summary judgment.
  • A number of Federal District Court cases specifying how notice of conditional certification must be provided and what must be contained in the notice, including notifying potential class members that they could be liable for costs.

The 2015 update to Wage & Hour Collective and Class Litigation is published by American Lawyer Media’s Law Journal Press.  It is available online at www.lawcatalog.com.

Authored by Geoffrey Westbrook

After more than four years of litigation, Citibank hauled in a significant victory last week against putative class and collective actions in Ruiz v. Citibank. Personal bankers from California, New York, Washington D.C. and other states alleged that Citibank withheld overtime pay under a nationwide scheme encouraging off-the-clock work. Although finding “systematic violations at the branch level,” a New York federal district court held that the plaintiffs failed to produce sufficient evidence to connect those violations to an uniform, overarching company practice. The court denied the plaintiffs’ bid for class certification of state law claims and decertified a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ruiz is part of a growing trend among trial courts emphasizing the need for evidence of an unlawful company policy in nationwide class and collective actions. Modern class actions must satisfy the “rigorous” Rule 23 certification standard articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes. Collective actions, however, are assessed under the FLSA’s “similarly situated” test. As explained below, the court in Ruiz blurred the lines between these two distinct standards, requiring evidence of an illegal company policy or uniform nationwide managerial conduct supporting the plaintiffs’ claims in both types of actions. Without such evidence, even with nationwide violations at the local level, under Ruiz both must fail.

Background

Digna Ruiz, a New York resident, filed a complaint seeking to represent a nationwide collective action under the FLSA and a class action under state labor law. He alleged that Citibank failed to compensate its personal bankers for overtime hours by setting high production targets and strictly limiting overtime work. A month later, residents of Washington, D.C., Illinois, Virginia and California filed nearly identical collective and class actions under the FLSA and laws of their respective states. These matters were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

After limited discovery, the court granted conditional certification of the FLSA collective action. More than 400 personal bankers opted in, and discovery proceeded in anticipation of the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and Citibank’s motion to decertify the collective action.

Denial of State Law Class Certification Based on Rule 23 and Dukes

Class certification was denied based almost entirely on the “commonality” requirement of Rule 23. To certify a nationwide class, among other requirements, there must be some evidence of a common policy or management practice that is subject to testing at the class-wide level. The court likened the case to Dukes, where written corporate policies were lawful and managers were lawfully given significant discretion over pay and promotions. In the absence of an illegal policy, Dukes requires evidence showing an unlawful corporate practice connecting Citibank’s more than 900 branch offices across the country. Evidence of a local or even regional policy will not likely be sufficient to certify a nationwide class.

The plaintiffs failed to show Citibank’s lawful policies uniformly translated themselves into unlawful managerial behavior across the country. Anecdotal evidence demonstrated conflicting experiences among bankers nationwide in which some personal bankers felt pressured to work off the clock, while others had no issue meeting performance goals. There was significant evidence that certain managers pressured bankers not to report overtime hours, but at those and other branches many were properly paid overtime, indicating at best an inconsistent practice. Knowledge of overtime violations rarely percolated above the district level, and when it did, immediate efforts were made by area management to rectify the violations. Thus, the plaintiffs could not establish a common management approach — on a nationwide basis — in exercising their considerable discretion and resulting in unpaid overtime through Citibank branches as a whole. Evidence of even systematic violations at the branch level (and in some cases reaching up to senior management) was not sufficient to certify a nationwide class.

Decertification of FLSA Collective Action

In decertifying the FLSA collective action, the court followed a rising trend analogizing the “commonality” requirement of Rule 23 to the “similarly situated” test for collective action ultimate certification. In this vein, the Ruiz court granted Citibank’s decertification motion. It relied on the same evidence underlying its class action certification denial, holding that “Plaintiffs have advanced the ball very little in demonstrating a common plan or scheme.” Secondhand statements regarding an alleged companywide policy to force unpaid overtime by branch managers, in the face of Citibank’s lawful overtime and performance policies, was not sufficient to show personal bankers across the country were “similarly situated.” All told, evidence of individual overtime violations at the district level will not alone carry the day for purposes of class and collective action certification.

Conclusion

Ruiz represents a growing movement of the courts seeking to bridge the analytical differences between class and collective actions. The result of this trend is a greater uniformity in wage and hour decisions based on parallel theories. Logically, a putative class of plaintiffs failing to meet Rule 23 “commonality” requirements should not be permitted to proceed with a collective action either. We will continue to track district courts throughout the country in hopes that this common sense line of cases increases in popularity.

Leading employment law firm Seyfarth Shaw has updated its definitive guide to the litigation of wage and hour lawsuits. Co-authored by three Seyfarth partners and edited by the chair of the firm’s national wage-hour practice, Wage & Hour Collective and Class Litigation is an essential resource for practitioners. The unique treatise provides insight into litigation strategy through all phases of wage & hour lawsuits, and is now updated with additional significant cases through 2014.

Among many other topics, the treatise’s authors examine how employers in multiple industries are targeted for wage-hour lawsuits and provides substantive procedural and practical considerations that determine the outcome of such actions in today’s courts. Principally designed to assist employment litigators and in-house counsel, the treatise also proves useful to senior management seeking to fend off wage-hour actions before they strike.

Authors Noah Finkel, Brett Bartlett and Andrew Paley, who practice in the firm’s Chicago, Atlanta and Los Angeles offices respectively, as well as Boston-based Richard Alfred, who is Chair of Seyfarth’s National Wage & Hour Litigation Practice Group, are each experienced wage and hour litigators who have handled numerous collective and class actions asserting violations under both state and federal law.

“The growth of wage and hour decisions at the appellate level has continued, and will have a significant impact on pending and future litigation,” said Alfred. “Our updated edition arrives at the perfect time for corporations looking for the most current insight and strategy on wage & hour litigation. New have touched on pleading requirements, the enforcement of class waivers in arbitration agreements, exemptions, and use of statistical evidence and sampling in class trials, among others. This handbook delves into these new developments and offers practical litigation advice to all employers navigating this complex space.”

Wage & Hour Collective and Class Litigation covers the complex rules surrounding all types of wage and hour lawsuits. These include claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, claims under state wage and hour laws, or hybrid cases involving both, as well as special issues involving government contractors. It provides readers guidance around: how to respond to a wage and hour complaint; what to consider when deciding whether to remove a case to federal court; how to assess the particular merits of a claim; whether to settle; how to oppose plaintiffs’ motion to facilitate notice for conditional certification; what kinds of affirmative defenses are best; and how to tilt the odds in favor of the defense.

In its fourth update to the treatise, Wage & Hour Collective and Class Litigation features discussions of recent decisions from appellate and trial courts and their effect on wage and hour litigation, emphasizing the following developments:

  • Recent federal appellate court decisions, including the Third Circuit’s decision in Davis v. Abington Memorial Hospital, analyzing what is necessary to plead a plausible claim for relief to avoid a motion to dismiss in wage and hour cases.
  • The California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Duran v. U.S. Bank.  This case establishes important principles in the class action setting on the use of statistical evidence and sampling, on employers’ due process rights to present evidence on their affirmative defenses and the use of trial plans to determine if class actions are manageable.  Although controlling law only in California, Duran establishes principles that may be helpful to employers litigating class actions in any forum.
  • The Second Circuit decision in Pippins v. KPMG on the application of the professional exemption to entry-level accountants.
  • The California Supreme Court’s decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, which overruled its prior decision in Gentry v. Superior Court.  The Iskanian ruling provides California employers with far more flexibility to utilize arbitration agreements in the employment setting and avoid class action litigation.
  • The Third Circuit’s decision in Thompson v. Real Estate Mortgage Network  applying a more lax federal common law standard to determine successor liability under the FLSA.

The 2015 update to Wage & Hour Collective and Class Litigation is published by American Lawyer Media’s Law Journal Press.  It is available online at www.lawcatalog.com.