California Federal Court Relies on Comcast to Deny Class Certification of Off-The-Clock and Meal Period Claims
By Bill Allen
Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied Rule 23 class certification of California state law claims for off-the-clock work and unpaid work time during meal periods in Forrand v. Federal Express Corp.*
First, the plaintiff alleged that she and other hourly employees were not paid for work performed during the time between their clock-in times and their scheduled start times. The district court had previously denied class certification on this claim, but in 2010 the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded that decision to “determine whether the level of FedEx’s control over employees within the proposed general class when they are on-the-clock but off-shift” was sufficient to render that time compensable under California law. On remand, the district court noted that Comcast requires a plaintiff “to bring forth a measurement method that can be applied classwide and that ties the plaintiff’s legal theory to the impact of the defendant’s illegal conduct.” The court found that the plaintiff’s proposed damages methodology, which assumed the entire gap between clock-in and the start of paid time was compensable, could be applied classwide, but failed “to tie California law to liability and a reliable measure of damages.” The court found that the plaintiff’s proposed class claim raised factual questions regarding whether each individual employee was in fact working and/or under the employer’s control during the gap period, and therefore individual factual inquiries predominated over classwide inquiries.
Continue Reading....jpg)
In a case of first impression, a Massachusetts Superior Court judge recently held that an employer may adopt a policy prohibiting employees from accepting tips from customers without violating the 
The First Circuit Court of Appeals .jpg)
Judge Gertner of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts recently issued an opinion rejecting the Klinghoffer rule, potentially making it easier for a plaintiff to prevail on claims that his or her employer failed to pay the minimum wage. Under the Klinghoffer rule, which takes its name from the case of United States v. Klinghoffer Bros. Realty Corp., 285 F.2d 487 (2d Cir. 1980), courts apply a weekly-average method to determine whether an employer is in compliance with the minimum wage requirement of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Applying this rule, courts have declined to find a minimum wage violation as long as the total weekly average wage divided by the hours actually worked is at least equal to the applicable minimum wage. For example, assume an employee works 26 hours per week at a rate of $10 per hour, earning $260 each week. Even if this employee worked an additional four hours for which she was not paid, her average hourly wage would equal $8.67, exceeding the minimum wage.
In July 2008, Massachusetts amended its state wage and hour laws to provide for mandatory awards of treble damages for plaintiffs who prevailed under those statutes. Since then, lawyers have disagreed as to whether this treble damages provision should apply retroactively. On August 31st, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court resolved this dispute by unanimously holding that the treble damages provision does not apply retroactively.
In a significant victory for Massachusetts healthcare employers, on December 20, 2010, the Massachusetts federal court applied the state overtime exemption available to hospitals, nursing homes, and certain other healthcare employers, and dismissed all 13 state wage-law claims in Cavallaro v.UMass Memorial Health Care. Plaintiffs in the case, a class action filed on behalf of 13,000 current and former employees of UMass Healthcare and its subsidiaries, claimed the hospital did not compensate them for time worked: (1) during meal breaks that were automatically deducted from wages; (2) before and after scheduled shifts; and (3) time spent in training sessions. To learn more about the Cavallaro decision and its implications for employers, please 
A court recently held that the Massachusetts overtime law, 
On August 21, 2009, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court unanimously ruled that a worker who has been misclassified as an independent contractor may seek damages from his former employer even if the employer establishes that the worker would have been paid less had he been classified as an employee.