Wage & Hour Counsel : Wage & Hour Lawyer & Attorney : Littler Mendelson Law Firm : Employment Law, Labor Relations

By Gregory B. Reilly

Employers faced with wage and hour litigation often seek to condition settlement on the agreement of plaintiffs to keep the settlement and its terms confidential. Confidentiality is often an important condition of settlement because employers may hope to avoid “copycat” claims by other employees be concerned that disclosure of a wage and hour settlement may be viewed by the public as an “admission” of liability.

Recently, in an unpublished decision, Brumley v. Camin Cargo Control Inc., the U.S. District Court in New Jersey refused an employer’s unopposed request to seal the terms of a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) lawsuit settlement. The court stated that there is a “presumption” in favor of public access to the settlement terms so that the public knows such cases are fairly resolved.

While it is still possible, depending upon the circumstances, that employers can confidentially resolve FLSA wage and hour lawsuits, it is becoming increasingly clear that courts, as in the Brumley case, are hesitant to do so. Moreover, when an FLSA lawsuit involves a sizable number of plaintiffs, the public’s interest in disclosure of the settlement terms seems more likely to be implicated. In this respect, we note that the settlement in Brumley involved 112 plaintiffs.

Photo credit: YanC

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A California federal court gave final approval to a $2.91 million settlement between Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and approximately 500 information technology employees who alleged they were misclassified as exempt under both the Fair Labor Standards Act and California law, and denied overtime for working through meal periods and working in excess of 40 hours per week, 8 hours per day or on the 7th consecutive day of a workweek. To learn more about the case, please continue reading at Littler's Healthcare Employment Counsel blog.

Photo credit: Bartek Szewczyk

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We recently reported a significant California Court of Appeals decision, marking what appears to be turning point in the development of California's Labor Code Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA"). In Deleon v. Verizon Wireless, the Second District Court of appeal addressed several unsettled PAGA issues. The Court's analysis has far-reaching consequences with respect to several issues, including (i) the settlement of individual and class-wide PAGA claims, (ii) the status of an "aggrieved employee" as a plaintiff, and (iii) the nature of PAGA representative actions.

On February 23, 2009, the plaintiff's in Deleon filed for review by the California Supreme Court. Employers are advised to monitor the Supreme Court's actions in this case, particularly those currently litigating purported PAGA claims. Unless and until the Supreme Court grants review, however, Deleon may still be cited as good law. For a more thorough analysis of the impact of the Deleon decision, see the Littler ASAP "Bounty Hunters" Lose Their State "Badge" as Court of Appeal Clarifies Several PAGA Issues.

This blog entry was authored by Vincent J. Mersich.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Deleon v. Verizon Wireless concerns a case where the employer had been previously sued under various sections of the California Labor Code for charging back commissions to its salespeople. No claims under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) were alleged in the original complaint. That case settled in 2006, and the court certified a class for purposes of settlement. Nothing in the settlement agreement made reference to the PAGA. Rather, the agreement defined "released claims" to include all liabilities and penalties arising out of "any conduct, events, or transactions occurring during the class period." After the settlement, the plaintiff in Deleon sued the same employer, purportedly on behalf of the same employees, based on the same violations of the Labor Code, but this time seeking only penalties pursuant to the PAGA. The employer demurred to the second complaint, and the court of appeal upheld the trial court's dismissal of the second complaint based on res judicata. The recent Deleon decision is significant for employers in at least the following three ways:

Settlement Agreements. Even if an employer is settling a class action that has no PAGA claims, provided the employees release all "liabilities and penalties" arising out of "any conduct, events, or transactions” occurring in the class period, Deleon provides that the employer should be protected against any subsequent tag-along PAGA actions. More importantly, the employer need not designate any part of the settlement amount as settling PAGA claims, and no part of the settlement amount need be paid to the State of California in order to release non-asserted PAGA claims. On the other hand, if PAGA claims are a part of the complaint, the parties will most likely be required to designate some portion of the settlement amount as settling PAGA claims, and 75 percent of that amount should be paid to the state.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link