Law Updates

Law Updates

Check back for recent changes in the law.

Gender Discrimination

NINTH CIRCUIT APPROVES WAL-MART GENDER DISCRIMINATION CLASS ACTION INVOLVING AT LEAST 1.5 MILLION WOMEN On February 6, 2007, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in a closely watched gender discrimination case brought by six female employees against Wal-Mart, the nation's largest employer. The six plaintiffs allege that, despite having equal or better qualifications, they were paid less than male employees for the same work and that they received fewer promotions to store management positions than their male coworkers.

FMLA

FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT (FMLA) AMENDED TO PROTECT MILITARY FAMILIES On January 28, 2008, President Bush signed an amendment to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) that extended greater protections to military families. The amendment (H.R. 4986, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2008 (NDAA), Pub. L. 110-181) allows an employee to take up to 26 workweeks of leave to care for an injured or ill member of that employee's immediate family who is a “covered service member” in the military. The NDAA also permits an employee to take 12 weeks of FMLA leave for "any qualifying exigency" arising out of the fact that an immediate family member in the military is on active duty or has been notified of an impending call or order to active duty in support of a contingency operation. The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which generally applies to employers who employee 50 or more people, was enacted in 1993 to provide employees with family and temporary medical leave under certain circumstances. Eligible employees can take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for the birth and care of the newborn child of the employee, placement with the employee of a son or daughter for adoption or foster care, care for an immediate family member (spouse, child, or parent) with a serious health condition, or medical leave when the employee is unable to work because of a serious health condition. The new provisions expand FMLA leave coverage.

Overtime Claims

NEW TREND IN WAGE AND HOUR LAWSUITS TARGETS PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY In the past year, a new trend has emerged in wage and hour class action litigation that targets pharmaceutical and health products companies. Several class actions have been filed in courts nationwide alleging that pharmaceutical and health products firms violated federal and state wage and hour laws by misclassifying sales representatives as exempt and denying them overtime pay, as well as meal and rest periods. Earlier this year, Novartis Corp. was hit with three different lawsuits in New York, New Jersey and California that seek a total of $375 million. The lawsuits, brought under both the Fair Labor Standards Act and state laws, seek unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, civil penalties, prejudgment interest, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. The lawsuits are seeking to certify both state and nationwide classes. A similar class action was filed against Eli Lilly & Co. this week by a former sales representative alleging that the company unlawfully classified its sales representatives as exempt and failed to pay overtime. The suit seeks twice the damages resulting from the unpaid overtime plus attorneys' fees. It is also seeking certification of two classes, one for the country as a whole and one for Eli Lilly's New York employees. If approved, the federal classes would be open to thousands of sales representatives who have worked at Novartis and Eli Lilly & Co. up to three years prior to the filing of the complaints in each respective suit.

Unpaid Wages - Tips

A Superior Court judge on Thursday ordered Starbucks Corp. to pay its California baristas $87 million in back tips, plus interest of $19 million that the coffee chain paid to shift supervisors. The court further issued an injunction that prevents Starbucks' shift supervisors from sharing in future tips, saying state law prohibits managers and supervisors from sharing in employee gratuities. The lawsuit was filed in October 2004 by a former Starbucks barista who complained shift supervisors were sharing in employee tips. In 2006 the case was granted class-action status, allowing the suit to go forward for as many as 100,000 former and current baristas in the coffee chain's California stores.