Wage and Hour

Defended a North American supermarket chain in a case involving claims for unpaid off-the-clock wages and termination pay under Oregon law. The amounts in dispute were small, but our client faced repeated claims by the same attorneys and wanted to send a message that it would not settle any more. A cross-office team handled the pre-trial work and the Portland trial before a court-appointed arbitrator. Obtained a complete defense verdict and an award of costs against the plaintiff, which were not appealed.

Defended a leading auto parts retailer against unpaid wage and meal period claims brought on behalf of a putative class of 1,700 store employees. The case involves novel issues regarding meal period timing requirements under Washington law. Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and argued for strict liability for meal period liability, but the district court judge adopted our position and entered an order denying class certification, rejecting plaintiff’s strict liability argument, and finding that proof of violations and potential waivers would be highly individualized. The district court then certified these core issues to the Washington Supreme Court.  In June 2017, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in our favor on two issues of first impression in Washington: holding that employees have an initial burden of proving that they did not receive meal periods and recognizing that employees may choose to waive meal periods. 

Served as lead counsel to a global roadside and automotive support services company in a class and collective action brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case asserted claims under the federal FLSA and Illinois minimum wage and wage payment laws that a putative class of hundreds of drivers were misclassified as contractors or employees of contractors and had been denied minimum wages and overtime. Substantially limited the FLSA class through the opt-in process and initially defeated Rule 23 class certification.  

Defended a business services provider against minimum wage and overtime claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act brought on behalf of an alleged class of hundreds of thousands of call center representatives. After we limited the case to an opt-in class of 3,367 employees, our motion to dismiss the claims was granted by the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed that decision in a published opinion in July 2018.  A parallel state class action asserting minimum wage, overtime, and unfair business practices claims under Washington law was argued to the U.S. Court of Appeals and Washington Supreme Court; after published opinions provided novel interpretations of state law, the matter returned to proceeding before the district court, where the class was narrowed to approximately 5,000 employees.

Defended an online travel service provider and its subsidiary against minimum wage and overtime claims based on alleged violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act brought on behalf of a nationwide class of thousands of travel consultants who worked for separate businesses that contracted with our client. Brought a threshold motion to remove the case from federal court and to require the plaintiff to pursue his individual claims in arbitration, which was granted by the federal court; this ruling effectively extinguished the plaintiff’s efforts to pursue claims on behalf of a class.

Defended one of the largest bus operations in Washington State against claims for meal period violations brought on behalf of a class of thousands of bus drivers. After four years of motions and interlocutory appeals that narrowed the case, the matter went to trial. The seven-day trial resulted in a resounding win with the presiding judge entering Findings, Conclusions, and Judgment in favor of our client. The judge’s ruling addressed two key legal issues that will be used by employers far beyond this case. In a matter of first impression, the court set out guidance on what is necessary for a public employer to negotiate an exception to rest and meal period requirements under RCW 49.12.187 and found that we satisfied those requirements. The court also applied the Supreme Court ruling in Brady v. AutoZone and found that the plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case of meal period violations.

Defended a major mobile telecommunications company in a putative wage and hour class action alleging violations of federal and state law, and breach of contract, in relation to time employees spent logging into their computers.

Served as lead defense counsel to a U.S. bank in a putative class action filed in Orange County, California, Superior Court, claiming the bank violated California law by seeking to recoup signing bonuses paid to its financial advisor employees who terminated their employment prematurely. Forced the representative plaintiffs to arbitrate their individual claims, which were rejected by the arbitrator. The court affirmed the arbitrator's rejection of the claims, and dismissed the class action with prejudice.

Served as lead counsel to a global business solutions provider in an Ohio collective action under the FLSA on behalf of a nationwide class of all employees asserting off-the-clock and overtime claims and challenging the enforceability of the company’s arbitration agreement. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted our motion to compel individual arbitration and dismissed the collective action. The plaintiff argued that the arbitration agreement he signed was invalid under the NLRA because it was silent as to class arbitration and therefore did not authorize class arbitration. Right before his opposition to our motion to compel was due, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion agreeing with the Seventh and Ninth Circuits in holding that express waivers of class arbitration violate the NLRA. In a matter of first impression, the court accepted our argument distinguishing a recent Sixth Circuit decision adopting the NLRB’s position on class waivers because the arbitration agreement was merely silent on class arbitration and did not expressly prohibit it.