Sexual harassment of prison staff by prison inmates is a difficult issue. Courts have rightly held that harassment by inmates can be actionable when the employer fails to take reasonable steps to combat it, but prisoners are not employees and are already incarcerated, so they require very different remedies than those generally used in the workplace. … Continue Reading
A claim is brought against a large employer contending that, although personnel decisions are made locally, it discriminates in pay and promotions on the basis of sex nationwide. Sound familiar? That was, essentially, the claim in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), that the Supreme Court held should not have been certified. … Continue Reading
On November 5, 2012 the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Comcast Corporation v. Behrend, No. 11-864 which arose from an action brought by Philadelphia cable subscribers alleging that Comcast monopolized Philadelphia’s cable market and excluded competition in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-2. Transcript of the … Continue Reading
Consistent with a trend that started roughly four years ago, a California District Court has refused to certify a class of retail store managers seeking overtime pay under California law on the grounds that individual issues would necessarily predominate. Deane v. Fastenal, Inc.pdf., Case No. 11-CV-0042 YGR (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2012). This case also … Continue Reading
What a difference a year or two can make in class action litigation. On March 10, 2010, the Superior Court for Los Angeles County, California certified a class of 13,000 employees in a series of consolidated cases asserting California rest and meal period claims against global security giant Wackenhut. Wackenhut Wage and Hour Cases, Judicial … Continue Reading
Authorship credit: S. Jeanine Conley Editor’s Note: Analysis of the Cuevas decision can also be read on Baker Hostetler’s Class Action Lawsuit Defense blog. In Cuevas v. Citizens Financial Group Inc.pdf, Case No. 10-cv-5582 (E.D.N.Y. May 2, 2012), the plaintiff brought an action on behalf of all Assistant Bank Managers (“ABMs”) who had worked at one of … Continue Reading
The Supreme Court hurled a large stone into the pond of employment class action lawsuits when it handed down its decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011). Despite being on the books now for almost an entire year, many of the Dukes ripples have still yet to reach shore, forcing … Continue Reading
The Supreme Court’s decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), seems to be taking hold in meal and rest period cases in California, as shown by two decisions handed down this month. The most recent casualty of the holding in Dukes is Cortez v. Best Buy Stores, LP, Case No. … Continue Reading
In Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), the Supreme Court held that it was error to certify a class of 1.6 million women alleging sex discrimination in employment. But what about a smaller, yet still enormous class? In Bell v. Lockheed Martin Corp., Case No. 08-6292 (RBK/AMD) (Dec. 14, 2011), the … Continue Reading
If there was a case that might indicate what the Ninth Circuit would do in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes.pdf, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), it was that of Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. CV-04-3341-MHP (N.D. Cal.). The Ellis case was, like Dukes, a putative … Continue Reading
The Dukes decision crossed several lines by certifying the class at the expense of the employer's defenses. The Supreme Court should accept certiorari and reverse.… Continue Reading