A federal court in Hawaii has dismissed in part a complaint filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against farmers and a recruiting company that allegedly mistreated Thai workers. EEOC v. Global Horizons, Inc., No. 11-00257 (D. Hawaii, decided November 8, 2012). The court granted the motion to dismiss “insofar as the Court holds that a 300-day limitations period applies to claims brought by Plaintiff under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6” relating to allegations of pattern or practice of discriminatory treatment because of national origin, race, retaliation, and/or constructive discharge. The remainder of the claims, to the extent they did not involve unlawful employment practices allegedly occurring more than 300 days before a charge was filed with EEOC, are not time-barred and will proceed. EEOC alleges that defendant Global Horizon promised Thai men temporary visas to work high-paying agricultural jobs in the United States, but took their passports, provided substandard housing…
Tag Archives labor
A federal court in California has dismissed putative class claims filed against H.J. Heinz Co. LP by a factory worker alleging that the company denied employees full wages by improperly rounding their time records while also purportedly penalizing and disciplining workers for “clocking in past scheduled start times or clocking out before scheduled end times.” Mendez v. H.J. Heinz Co., L.P., No. 12-5652 (C.D. Cal., decided November 13, 2012). The plaintiff sought to represent putative statewide and nationwide Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) classes and alleged violations of the California Labor Code—failure to pay all wages, failure to pay minimum wages owed, failure to timely pay wages at separation, failure to provide accurate wage statements—and violation of the California Business and Professions Code. He also asserted a claim for violation of the FLSA on behalf of the nationwide class. The court agreed with the defendants that the plaintiff failed to…
The First Circuit Court of Appeals has determined, as a matter of first impression, that Starbucks Corp. violated a Massachusetts law prohibiting restaurant tips to be shared with employees who have managerial responsibilities, because the “upscale coffee house” chain allowed tips collected in tip jars by the cash registers of its Massachusetts shops to be shared by shift supervisors and baristas. Matamoros v. Starbucks Corp., Nos. 12-1189, -1277 (1st Cir., decided November 9, 2012). Massachusetts apparently amended a tip-sharing law in 2004. Under the earlier version, the courts applied a “primary duty” test to decide whether an employee could participate in a tips pool—if the primary duty was to serve customers, he could participate; if the primary duty was to manage, she was ineligible. After amendment, the legislature clearly defined a “wait staff employee” as someone, among other matters, “who has no managerial responsibility.” The court agreed with the plaintiffs…
In a recent article detailing the safety risks faced by underage farm workers, New York Times journalist John Broder examines thwarted efforts to broaden farm labor regulations after reports of silo, bin and grain elevator fatalities at both large commercial enterprises and smaller family operations not currently covered by federal law. “Experts say the continuing rate of silo deaths is due in part to the huge amount of corn being produced and stored in the United States to meet the global demand for food, feed and, increasingly, ethanol-based fuel,” writes Broder. “That the deaths persist reveals continuing flaws in the enforcement of worker safety laws and weaknesses in rules meant to protect the youngest farm workers. Nearly 20 percent of all serious grain bin accidents involve workers under the age of 20.” In particular, the article describes agricultural child labor rules proposed by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) that not…
A federal jury in California has reportedly determined that Benihana properly classified three restaurant managers as exempt thus concluding wage-related litigation against the chain. Originally filed as a putative class action in state court, the case initially included claims about overtime wages, accrued vacation pay, rest and meal breaks, and itemized wage statements. By the time the case was tried after removal to federal court, it involved just three named plaintiffs and the overtime dispute. According to a news source, the company nearly derailed the case by alleging that one of the employees had copied and destroyed thousands of files from a computer at the company’s Cupertino, California, location. The court levied sanctions against the employee and dismissed him from the case, but then determined that the conduct, alleged to be “wrongful self-help discovery” and the deletion of stolen copies, may not have been “beyond the pale” because some evidence…
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has certified to the New York Court of Appeals questions arising under state employment law in a dispute over the distribution of tips in Starbucks stores. Barenboim v. Starbucks Corp., No. 10-4912; Winans v. Starbucks Corp., No. 11-3199 (2d Cir., questions certified October 23, 2012). A federal district court determined that Starbucks properly distributed pooled tips to shift supervisors and that Starbucks was not required to include assistant store managers in its tip pools. The appellants in the consolidated appeals are a putative class of baristas who allege that shift supervisors are “agents” under New York Labor Law § 196-d and ineligible to share tips, and a putative class of assistant store managers who claim they are entitled to share in the tip pools because they perform the same tasks as baristas and have only limited management authority. The plaintiffs in both cases sought review…
The United Farm Workers has reportedly filed a lawsuit against the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) over its alleged “systemic failure” to enforce a 7-year-old regulation requiring farmers to provide water, shade and rest to employees to prevent heat illness or death. Bautista v. Cal/OSHA, No. ___ (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., filed October 18, 2012). The union contends that “[a]t least 28 farm workers have died of potentially heat-related causes since the regulation was first approved in 2005. This year alone, Cal/OSHA is investigating heat as a factor in the deaths of four people.” The complaint, filed on behalf of individual farm workers, the United Farm Workers (UFW) and UFW Foundation, alleges, among other matters, that Cal/OSHA has failed to (i) “conduct on-site inspections for complaints”; (ii) “evaluate the conditions alleged in a complaint when it does conduct inspections”; (iii) “issue citations for serious, repeat,…
A California court has reportedly denied a motion to certify a class of Hard Rock Café employees who allege that the restaurant chain wrongly classified them as exempt employees and then forced them to assume the tasks of non-exempt employees without paying them overtime or allowing them to take meal periods and rest breaks, and otherwise provided inaccurate wage statements. In re Hard Rock Café Wage & Hour Cases, No. JCCP 4549 (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty., decided October 3, 2012). According to the restaurant chain’s counsel, the court determined that the putative class of kitchen managers lacked numerosity, the identity and number of class members could not be ascertained, and the named representative could not adequately represent the class. The court also apparently found that individual analysis of each employee’s work activities would be required to decide whether they had been properly classified as exempt. Counsel for named plaintiff…
A federal court in Georgia has denied a request to certify a nationwide class of Steak 'n Shake hourly employees in a dispute over alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, finding that class members are not similarly situated to the named plaintiffs or to each other. Beecher v. Steak 'n Shake Operations, Inc., No. 11-04102 (N.D. Ga., decided September 27, 2012). The putative class would have involved some 65,000 employees working in more than 400 corporate restaurants in five different U.S. regions. They alleged that restaurant managers were authorized to and did in fact change time records in bad faith and thus did not compensate them for all of their work or paid them less than minimum wage. According to the court, the evidence showed that restaurant managers had a number of legitimate reasons for altering time records. For example, if the clock in/clock out times did not correctly…
A federal court in New York has dismissed with prejudice claims that Mario Batali’s Del Posto restaurant allegedly retained portions of workers’ tips in violation of federal and state labor laws after approving an agreement requiring the defendants to pay $1.15 million into a settlement fund and provide workers with training and paid vacation time and sick leave. Amastal v. Pasta Resources, Inc., No. 10-07748 (S.D.N.Y., order entered September 24, 2012). Additional information about the lawsuit can be found in Issue 368 of this Update. The 31 plaintiffs in this lawsuit had opted out of a similar class action involving captains, servers, waiters, bussers, runners, backwaiters, bartenders, and barbacks at Del Posto and seven other restaurants; the class action apparently concluded with a $5.25 million settlement deal preliminarily approved in May. Details about the class action appear in Issues 361 and 430 of this Update. The deal also apparently releases claims…
