Employment Legal News Articles & Interviews

Collingswood, NJ On November 5, former employee, Young Cho, filed a class action ERISA lawsuit (ERISA) in the District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that fiduciaries of the Prudential Insurance Company 401k plan breached their duty to plan participants by selecting and managing investment options to benefit Prudential, rather than retirement savers.

San Francisco, CA On January 6, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a $54.6 million jury award for Wal-mart's truck drivers under the provisions of California labor law. Wal-mart had challenged the 2016 District Court decision in Ridgeway v. Walmart, Inc. on a variety of grounds, including lack of jurisdiction, the certification of a class of similarly situated plaintiffs and the applicability of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994.

Sacramento, CA Many new California employment and labor laws went into effect this January 1, 2020. If you are a California  employer, employee or independent contractor, it’s a good idea to review these new laws that have been passed as they might impact you.  

Washington, DC On January 13, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Thole v. U.S. Bank, NA, an ERISA lawsuit (ERISA) that has major implications for the rights of participants and beneficiaries to sue plan sponsors under the basic legal framework of ERISA. The defendant plan sponsor will argue that the plaintiff retirees have no standing to sue over alleged breaches of fiduciary duty because they have not suffered any individual financial loss. The defendant plan sponsor will ask the Court to affirm an Eighth Circuit decision that limits participants’ rights to oversee investment management decisions.

Anaheim, CA All Disney employees are entitled to minimum wage, from bellhop to barista, Mickie and Minnie. But five current and former workers claim that the entertainment behemoth has violated the California labor law by failing to pay its workers minimum wage, failing to pay overtime and all wages owed at termination.

San Francisco, CA On December 16, Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California denied Uber’s Motion to Dismiss a class action California labor lawsuit that claims Uber drivers were misclassified as independent contractors under standards set out in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court. However, in Colopy v. Uber Techs Inc., Judge Chen also denied the drivers’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. The injunction would have required the ride-hailing giant to begin to treat drivers as employees immediately.

San Francisco, CA A former Juul employee filed a sexual harassment lawsuit early December in San Francisco Superior Court, claiming she was the victim of unwanted sexual advances. Her California labor lawsuit also claims wrongful termination after reporting the harassment incidents to the vaping company managers.

San Francisco, CA “How can you approve the settlement when the underlying contract is illegal?” Uber driver, S. Patrick Mendel’s question to the Northern District of California last spring rings with frustration. Judge Chen acknowledged as much: “This case did not resolve the ultimate question” for drivers who claim they were misclassified as independent contractors under provisions of California labor law. The result is unlikely to change following Mendel’s renewed, and probably last, round of objections to the Ninth Circuit in November.

San Francisco, CA On November 21, Casey Denning and Natalia Cole filed a lawsuit on behalf of themselves and similarly situated cannabis workers alleging that harvesting company Loud Buddha LLC and Pura Cali Management Corp, a cultivation contractor hired by Loud Buddha, violated provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California labor code. The Complaint claims that the employers forced them to work long hours in oppressive conditions without providing overtime pay, meal breaks, or accurate wage statements.

Oakland, CA The Dignity Health ERISA lawsuit has been exhaustively litigated since 2013, but now appears close to settlement. The proposed settlement in Rollins v. Dignity Health, which still requires final approval by the Northern District of California, would require Dignity Health to add $50 million in retirement plan funding in 2020 and at least $50 million in 2021. In addition, Dignity Health must not reduce participants’ accrued benefits because of a plan merger or amendment for 10 years. Dignity Health has also promised to fund the plan until 2024, making the minimum contribution recommended by actuaries to the plan.