Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act vs. California’s Meal and Rest Break Requirements

/

 

Initially, wage and hour putative class action brought by the same truck drivers was dismissed. Alleged claims were based on violations of California’s meal break laws. The class action was dismissed on the ground that the Federal Aviation Administration Act (FAAAA) preempted California meal break laws. It was the second time in recent months that a court upheld the argument that California’s break laws are preempted by the FAAAA. The FAAAA specifically preempts state laws when there is a significant impact on the “routes, service or prices” of motor carriers.

Truck drivers received a boost recently as their attempt to revive the class action suit against Vitran Express Inc. was supported by the Ninth Circuit court’s decision that the Federal Aviation Administration Act did not preempt California’s meal and rest break requirements. Many are watching the progress of the case.

Additional Background on the Case:

Plaintiffs were former truck drivers of Performance Food Group, Inc. (PFG), located in California. Plaintiffs claimed that PFG arranged delivery routes in order to ensure excellent customer service and timely delivery of cargo without taking into account “time pressure” on the truckers who were being given delivery windows and other policies that prevented them from taking meal breaks.

If you have questions about the California meal break laws, ask the experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

PetSmart Pays $10 Million as Wage Class Action Settlement

/

According to documents filed in California federal court on January 31, 2014, PetSmart agreed to pay $10 million to settle claims that 16,000 animal groomers/workers (current and former) in more than 130 stores were underpaid.

The suit was originally filed in 2012 with allegations that PetSmart violated labor law. Plaintiffs claimed:

  • PetSmart failed to compensate groomers for time spent doing non-grooming duties (i.e. stocking/cleaning).
  • PetSmart stylists were paid 50% of the grooming fee. This failed to cover minimum wage requirements for time spent performing non-grooming duties.
  • PetSmart failed to compensate hourly employees for helping customers during meal breaks (employees were required to punch out of time clocks at the front of the store while the break rooms were located at the back of the store).
  • PetSmart broke California labor law mandating a meal period after 5 hours of work. Hourly employees were allowed 30-minute meal breaks if they worked 6-8 hours. 

The approval hearing for the PetSmart settlement has been set for March 7th. Successful settlement would resolve all allegations made against PetSmart by all plaintiffs included in the suit: hourly employees and stylists, grooming trainees as well as grooming salon managers who were employed in a California PetSmart store between May 23, 2008 and the present. The class for terminated PetSmart employees ranges from May 23, 2009 to the present.

For more news on recent employment law cases, check back often for updates from Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.