Latest News
Walmart: No Price Rollback For Truck Driver Claims
- Details
- Written by Adrian Hoppes
The Ninth Circuit affirmed a $54.6 million jury verdict for truck drivers who said Walmart violated California wage and hour laws including failure to pay minimum wage for layovers, rest breaks and inspections as a matter of law. The majority of the damages awarded in this case rested on whether Walmart exercised control over its employees’ off duty time, a significant question that has been litigated in several contexts in recent years. This case is another reminder that employers who exercise even minimum control over employees during off duty hours could face hefty awards from a jury for unpaid wages. In the present case, the Court held that Walmart exercised enough control over truck drivers during their off duty periods that it was tantamount to working hours. Ridgeway v. Walmart Inc., DBA Wal-Mart Transportation LLC. (2020).
ALERT: Arbitration Injunction Will Remain In Place For Now
- Details
- Written by Adrian Hoppes
California employers won yet another important victory Friday in the fight to allow the use of mandatory employment arbitration agreements in California. See our previous articles on AB-51 here and here. In December, the California Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit challenging AB-51 because it runs afoul of federal arbitration law.
In late December, a federal court in California issued a temporary restraining order blocking AB-51 from taking effect on January 1, 2020 pending an additional hearing scheduled for last Friday. During Friday’s hearing, the court decided the ban on AB-51 should stay in effect until at least January 31, 2020 as the judge further considers arguments from the state and additional case law on the subject matter. The court previously expressed serious concerns regarding whether the new law is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act and concerns over how this new law will disrupt the current employment agreement process and potentially send a flood of cases to an already over-crowded civil court system. Therefore, the court ruled that the current ban will stay in place, at least for the remainder of the month, and ideally, through this litigation.