For example, in a recent class action lawsuit involving prominent retailers, employees alleged that they were not reimbursed for mileage and other work-related travel expenses for:

• Daily bank deposits;
• Purchasing supplies for store events;
• Required travel between stores to attend meetings;
• Required travel between stores to provide staffing support; or
• Required travel to transfer inventory.

Are you being properly reimbursed for business expenses by your employer?

Under California Labor Code Section 2802, Orange County employers must reimburse employees for “all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her obedience to the directions of the employer.” This means that employers must reimburse employees for all money spent on performing work-related duties or following your directions.

If an employer fails to properly reimburse employees, Section 2802 allows an employee to recover un-reimbursed expenses, interest from the date the expense was incurred, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by the employee to enforce the rights granted by the statute. If you have not been properly reimbursed by your employer, talk to one of our experienced employment attorneys about your legal rights and potential for financial recovery.

With respect to mileage reimbursement, the IRS rate is generally considered to be the most reasonable reimbursement rate (56.5 cents per mile for business miles driven as of January 2013). While this is not amount is not required by law, make sure you discuss your strategy with an experienced Orange County business attorney before deciding on your own method for reimbursement.

What are some other business expenses that must be reimbursed under California law?

These expenses include:

• The cost of uniforms – apparel and accessories of distinctive design and color;
• Maintenance of those uniforms (if required to be worn as a condition of employment by non-exempt employees);
• The cost of providing and maintaining tools or equipment required for the performance of the job.

If you believe that your employer has not been properly reimbursing you, contact the experienced Orange County employment law attorneys at Hardin & Associates today.

Read on to learn about three cases that highlight the importance of employers’ maintaining an awareness of the nuances California and federal wage and hour laws, particularly when it comes to the issue of employee overtime pay.

The class action overtime lawsuit Sarah Chookey v. Sears Roebuck & Co. resulted in a $3.2 million settlement for the employees. The case, which affected thousands of current and former Sears employees, alleged that Sears miscalculated employees’ overtime pay over a several year time period. Federal law requires employees to be paid overtime at a rate of 1.5 times the regular pay rate of an employee. The calculation is relatively uncomplicated when an employee is paid on a simple, hourly basis. However, the correct overtime calculation can become more complicated when, as in Sarah Chookey, employees are paid commission on top of hourly wages. When commissions are part of an employee’s regular pay, they must be included in the overtime calculation.

Proper classification of employees is another issue that can potentially confuse Orange County employers when determining overtime pay. According to disgruntled employees, the employers in the recently filed case Ramses Gutierrez et al v. Carter Brothers Security Services LLC et al. allegedly misclassified their employees to avoid paying them California overtime, minimum wage, and other expenses. The case hinges on the issue of whether the employees were correctly classified as “independent contractors” for the purposes of applicable employment laws. Independent contractors are typically entitled to fewer protections and benefits than regular employees. The plaintiffs are currently seeking classification as a class action.

A similar employment lawsuit, Amaro & Urzua, et al v. Gerawan Farming Inc. et al, was recently filed as a class action against a California farming company. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of thousands of farm and field workers who claim their take-home wage fell below California’s minimum wage because they were paid by volume of work, rather than hourly. The plaintiffs have alleged that the company failed to pay overtime in accordance with California’s state overtime laws and failed to pay minimum wage as required by California state law. The plaintiffs have also alleged that Gerawan failed to give them the proper number and duration of rest breaks required by state law.

This recent increase in overtime suits illustrates the need for Orange County employers to comply with the applicable California and federal laws when it comes to calculating overtime payments and related entitlements and benefits for employees. To discuss in further detail, contact an experienced employment lawyer today.

The Orange County employment lawyers at Hardin & Associates have vast experience handling class action lawsuits. Contact them today.

The plaintiffs in Duran were loan officers who brought a lawsuit against US Bank claiming that they were improperly denied overtime pay under California law because they were illegally classified as “outside salespersons.” An “outside salesperson” is one who spends over half of each workday outside of the office of the employer. This scenario presented a difficult set of challenges for the class action certification process. Because each of the 260 total loan officers involved in the case spent different amounts of time in and out of the office, the issue of whether each loan officer was an “outside salesperson” varied for each person.

While US Bank proposed to try each of the alleged class members’ claims separately, the trial court and plaintiffs approached the problem differently. They took a “representative sample” of class members – 21 people total – examined their work habits, and extrapolated liability to the remaining members of the class. Rather than using the plaintiff’s proposed method of selecting allegedly “representative” members, the trial court selected class members at random to go to trial.

The issue of the permissibility of such representative sampling was appealed up to the California Supreme Court. The Supreme Court clearly found that the trial court had exceeded its limits by using sampling and statistics in order to come to legal and factual conclusions.

While the Supreme Court in Duran concluded that the trial court had erred in its sampling methodology, it did not set forth a categorical rule for determining what forms of sampling, if any, are permissible. The Supreme Court did state, however, that statistical methods are not admissible to prove liability in a class action when such methods are incompatible with the nature of the plaintiff’s claims of the defendant’s defenses. In this case, the statistical method was incompatible with US Bank’s defense that many of the alleged class members were “outside salespersons.”

Because the California Supreme Court did not set forth a bright-line rule, the decision in Duran has left many questions open as to when and under what circumstances representative sampling may be used in court for the purposes of class certification and liability.

For more information on filing a class action lawsuit, contact the experienced class action attorneys at Hardin & Associates today.

Where do I file a class action lawsuit?

Typically, federal courts are thought to be more favorable for defendants, and state courts more favorable for plaintiffs. Many class actions are filed initially in state court. A defendant will frequently try to remove the case to federal court, a process that was made easier with the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, which gives federal courts original jurisdiction for all class actions with damages exceeding $5,000,000 (exclusive of interest and costs). California has a civil procedure systems that deviates significantly from the federal rules, the details of which you can discuss with your California class action lawyer.

What is the procedure for filing a class action in federal court?

As we stated above, a class action lawsuit is filed on behalf of a group of people (the ‘proposed class’), some of whom may be unknown at the time of filing. Therefore, the suit will be filed with only one or a few named plaintiffs. After filing the initial paperwork, the plaintiff will file a motion to have the class ‘certified’. In order for the class to be certified, or approved by the court, the proposed class must consist of a group of individuals or business entities that have suffered a common injury or injuries. In some cases, class certification may require discovery in order to determine its size and if the proposed class meets the standard for class certification.

Once the motion to certify the class is filed, the defendant[s] may make their objections about whether a class action is appropriate. Objections include: whether the issues are appropriately handled as a class action, whether the named plaintiffs are sufficiently representative of the class, and the plaintiffs relationship with the law firm or firms handling the case. The court will also examine the ability of the firm to prosecute the claim for the plaintiffs, and their resources for dealing with class actions. This is one more reason why choosing a law firm experienced in class actions lawsuits and with a successful track record is necessary.

For more information on how to file a class action lawsuit in California, contact the experienced trial attorneys at Hardin & Associates today.