Archive for the ‘Wage and Hour Victories’ Category

G&A Looking Back at 2009 and Forward to 2010!

Tuesday, January 5th, 2010

Goyette & Associates is thrilled to have achieved unprecedented growth in 2009 and look forward with excitement to the prospect of what we will achieve in 2010!

Our Labor and Employment Divisions were successful in dozens of internal investigations, Skellys, arbitration hearings and disciplinary matters. We can boast successes at the bargaining table even in this volatile economic climate due to the expertise of our Labor Representatives. To review some of our Labor and Employment successes click here.

Gary Goyette saw huge wins and progress in our Wage and Hour division. You can review some our recent victories here.

G&A’s Lead Civil Litigation attorney Joy Rosenquist, received press coverage on the Neri matter , one of her many cases. To read the Modesto Bee article pertaining to this Brady issue click here.

Gary Goyette is once again recognized as one of California’s preeminent lawyers regarding Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) matters and complex class actions. The attorneys of this division have been highly successful in 2009 and look forward to upcoming decisions pending in 2010. For a review of G&A’s Complex Legal or Class Action successes, click here.

With 2 highly publicized trials, Paul Q. Goyette added yet another win to his 15 year winning streak in State and Federal Courts and established himself further as one of California’s preeminent high profile criminal trial attorneys. For articles related to the Deleon and Newlin trials, click here.

Rafael Ruano, managing associate for G&A’s Estate and Business Planning division, saw exponential growth this year and is planning to participate in a 30 minute television spot in late January for a National organization. For more information on G&A’s Estate Planning Division or to see if you or your organization qualifies for reduced fees for wills, trusts or estate plans, click here.

As the exclusive panel attorney’s for RN Guardian, G&A’s lawyers successfully represented, and are currently representing, California Registered Nurses in disciplinary actions against their licenses with the BRN. RN Guardian Attorneys have also dispensed proactive legal advice which has mitigated adverse action in both job and licensing matters for RNs. For more information on the successes of RN Guardian or how your association can partner with RN Guardian, click here.

As featured speakers for the highly sought Advantage Training and Education Series, Paul and Gary Goyette offered their unique brand of advice and decades of institutional knowledge and expertise to over 100 attendees at the training seminar in Sacramento in November. The Advantage Training and Education Series is currently planning a Southern California Seminar for March in conjunction with the law firm of Silver, Hadden Silver, Wexler and Levine. For more information on how to obtain DVDs of the November training, or to sign up for the upcoming Southern California event, please contact Jennifer Coalson-Perez or click here for a sample agenda.

We would like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude to our clients, colleagues and especially to our driven team for making Goyette & Associates the diversified and successful Firm it is. Here is to continued successes for 2010! Happy New Year!

Court of Appeal decision obtained by Goyette & Associates affirming CA overtime pay requirements for tugboat employees becomes final

Friday, December 11th, 2009

 Goyette & Associates wage & hour attorney Gary Goyette has helped establish new case law affirming the application of California overtime pay requirements to tugboat employees working within California waters and servicing vessels which travel on the high seas involved in international trade. The California Supreme Court just denied the petition for review filed by the tugboat employer seeking to have the Court of Appeal decision affirming the overtime pay requirements, making the Court of Appeal decision final.

 As previously summarized, Gary Goyette has represented Bay Area tugboat Captain Jerrold Karmin since Mr. Karmin won his overtime pay complaint filed with the CA Labor Commissioner against his employer, Marine Express, and after this employer ‘appealed’ this award to the Alameda Count Superior Court. In the Superior Court, a one day bench trial was held and closing briefs were then filed by both sides. The attorneys for Marine Express argued that California overtime pay requirements (to pay time and a half wages for hours worked above eight hours in a day) did not apply to Mr. Karmin because he fell under the federal wage law ‘seaman’s exemption’ based on the fact that his work primarily involved transporting personnel and goods in the San Francisco Bay to ocean-going vessels anchored in the Bay, and therefore his work qualified as interstate and/or international trade falling under Maritime law. In turn, Marine Express attorneys argued that the federal ‘seaman’s exemption’, which did not require overtime pay for extra hours worked, controlled over or “preempted” the state wage law overtime pay requirements. The Superior Court agreed with the Marine Express arguments and ruled that CA overtime pay requirements were preempted by the federal wage law ‘seaman’s exemption’ for tugboat employees servicing ocean-going vessels.

Goyette & Associates appealed this ruling for Mr. Karmin to the California Court of Appeal, which reversed the Superior Court ruling and concluded that the federal wage law ‘seaman’s exemption’ does not preempt California’s overtime pay requirements for tugboat employees servicing ocean-going vessels. The Court of Appeal relied on the established case law cited by Gary Goyette to find that transportation of personnel and goods to vessels which would travel on the high seas, engaging in international trade and falling under various aspects of Maritime law, did not alter the application of state wage law regarding overtime pay – - at least not for tugboat employees working within California boundaries/waters. The Court of Appeal found the mere ‘connection’ to international trade did not affect California overtime pay requirements. Click here to view the document.

Also as previously summarized, Marine Express refused to accept the Court of Appeal decision as issued, and filed a petition for review to the California Supreme Court. On December 2nd, the Supreme Court denied this petition for review, making the Court of Appeal decision that state wage law is not preempted by the federal ‘seaman’s exemption’ for tugboat employees working within California waters final.

Cout of Appeal Decision Karmin v. Marine Express

Thursday, December 10th, 2009

To see the courts decision click here: Court of Appeal DECISION 8 27 09

Tugboat Employer Refuses to Recognize State Wage Law

Tuesday, October 20th, 2009

It’s becoming a long road for Bay Area tugboat Captain Jerrold Karmin.  After filing an overtime wage claim with the California Labor Commissioner based on his employer, Marine Express, refusing to provide overtime pay for work above eight hours per day, Mr. Karmin won at the hearing when the Labor Commissioner ruled that the belief held by Marine Express that the federal wage law ‘seaman’s exemption’ preempted state wage law was incorrect.  Marine Express then ‘appealed’ this decision to the Alameda County Superior Court and Mr. Karmin retained Goyette & Associates.  Following a one day trial, the Superior Court bought Marine Express’ argument that the state overtime pay requirement was preempted by the seaman’s exemption under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  Gary Goyette then took that decision to the California Court of Appeal and won; the Court of Appeal ruled that even if a tugboat Captain satisfies the FLSA seaman’s exemption, such exemption from overtime pay under the FLSA does not preempt or overrule California’s overtime pay requirements when the employee in question performs his work within California boundaries, lives in California, and pays California taxes.

Marine Express won’t give up, as they have now filed a Petition to the California Supreme Court to hear this matter.  They still believe that since Mr. Karmin’s work involved servicing anchored, ocean going vessels in the San Francisco Bay, and since such vessels travel on the high seas after being serviced by Marine Express, the federal law must control over state wage law.  Of course for such argument to make sense, any work having a connection to the high seas, or to work in other countries, or even in multiple states should be governed only under federal wage law.  This of course was never the intention of California Legislators enacting state wage law and requiring time and a half pay for all work above eight hours per day.

Goyette & Associates will soon file a preliminary Answer to the Marine Express Petition, arguing that state wage law for California residents working entirely within the state is well established, and therefore the California Supreme Court should not even hear this matter. Whether the Supreme Court will accept the Marine Express Petition and will require full briefing from the parties will be determined over the next few months.

Overtime Pay Victory for Gary Goyette

Friday, September 11th, 2009

Karmin v. Marine Express:

In August 2009, the California Court of Appeal, ruled that the “Seaman’s Exemption” under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) did not automatically preempt California wage law requiring overtime pay for employee’s falling under this FLSA exemption – - at least not when such employee’s perform all their work within California boundaries, and are California residents & taxpayers.  State wage law as it applies to overtime pay to persons falling under this federal exemption still applies.  This CA Court of Appeal ruling was made in the case in which Goyette & Associates represents an individual employee, tugboat & launch boat captain Jerrold Karmin.

Jerrold Karmin, a resident of California and licensed tugboat and launch boat captain was denied overtime pay by his employer Marine Express.  Marine Express is a California corporation that, among other things, services ocean going vessels.  These vessels engage in interstate and international commerce and sail under both domestic and international flags with crews from all over the world.  All of Karmin’s work servicing these vessels, however, was performed within the territorial waters of California; more specifically, most of his work was performed within the San Francisco Bay. Despite this fact, Marine Express has always relied on the theory that once an employee falls under the FLSA ‘seaman’s exemption’, this exemption also ‘preempts’ and renders inapplicable California wage law regarding overtime pay.  The CA Court of Appeal did not see it that way.

Following the guidance of established case law and statutes, the CA Court of Appeal recognized that the FLSA does not preempt state regulation.  In fact the FLSA contains a “savings clause” which has been interpreted to expressly permit states to regulate overtime wages, particularly when other federal or maritime laws are not controlling and when the work performed is not done on the high seas or on bodies of water which cross between two or more states.  The Court determined that, regardless of whether the serviced ships were bound for interstate or international commerce, a California resident working exclusively within the state territorial waters of California is entitled to overtime compensation as required by state law. 

The CA Court of Appeal decision in favor of Mr. Karmin may be applicable to Marine Express and their present tugboat and launch boat captains and deckhands. For work performed entirely within California borders (and not on the high seas or between two or more states) the state law requirements for overtime pay for hours worked above eight (8) hours in a day remain controlling for tugboat and launch boat captains and deckhands.

Court Denies City’s motion to Decertify the Class in the Donning & Doffing Suit against LAPD

Thursday, August 13th, 2009

Federal Central District Court Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank denied the motion made by the attorneys for the City of Los Angeles asking the Court to disband or ‘decertify’ the class of over 2,000 LAPD Officers who are part of the lawsuit seeking overtime pay for pre and post shift time spent donning, doffing and performing associated tasks related to the LAPD required uniform components and special protective gear. The lawsuit, Nunez et. al. v. City of Los Angeles, is being litigated for the large group of LAPD Officers, Sergeants and Lieutenants by Goyette & Associates along with Silver, Hadden, Silver, Wexler & Levine.

Attorneys for the City and LAPD made the motion to argue that the class of over 2,000 LAPD peace officers, who are members of the Los Angeles Police Protective League (LAPPL) union and who joined the lawsuit, should be decertified or disbanded based on factual differences between the class members. Specifically, the City contended that the class members should not be considered ‘similarly situated’ to the five named Plaintiffs because of alleged differences in the location of the donning & doffing (at work versus at home), and differences in how some of the defenses being asserted by the City apply to the class members.

 The Court found, however, that the published case law cited by the City was distinguishable because it mostly involved decertification cases in which the employees were subject to different policies, enforced by different supervisors, which varied from store to store or office to office. Conversely, the Court found that the Plaintiffs and class members in the Nunez case were subject to one consistent LAPD policy: that pre and post shift time spent donning, doffing and performing activities associated with the required uniform and protective gear was not compensated by LAPD. The Court relied on decertification cases cited by Goyette & Associates and Silver, Hadden, Silver, Wexler & Levine which established that some factual differences between Plaintiffs and class members did not necessarily support class decertification, since the claims by class members did not have to be identical to those of the named Plaintiffs. Rather, the class members had to be ‘similarly situated’ to the named Plaintiffs.

With the Nunez class of over 2,000 LAPD peace officers intact, the lawsuit now moves forward to final motions regarding liability, and then likely on to the trial set for late January of next year. A ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal on a peace officer donning & doffing case from Arizona is expected in the coming months and may or may not affect the Nunez litigation. The Nunez lawsuit against LAPD is one of various donning & doffing class actions which Goyette & Associates is litigating for peace officers in California.

Class Action Against CALTRANS for Prevailing Wages and Overtime Settles for $5.2 Million

Wednesday, September 17th, 2008

Between 2005 and 2008 Goyette and Associates litigated and ultimately successfully settled a class action law suit against CALTRANS, and against several employers of tugboat captains and deck hands in a dispute over prevailing wages and overtime pay for work performed on the various Bay Area bridge seismic retrofit projects. The case involved many complicated factual and legal issues, including the rights to prevailing wages on public works projects, the right to overtime pay under California wage law, the obligation by an awarding body to properly advertise prevailing wage rates and the associated obligation of contractors to pay such wage rates, and the roll and function of the employees’ union in such matters. The class action law suit initially arose because a group of between 300 and 500 tugboat captains and deckhands who were performing work on the various seismic retrofit projects on bridges throughout the Bay Area were not receiving prevailing wages and overtime pay for their work. Unlike other employees working in other trades on the seismic retro fit projects, the tugboat captains and deckhands were not receiving prevailing wages on these public works projects, nor were they receiving overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 8 hours in a work day.

G&A initially met with representative tugboat captains and deck hands and then engaged in a detailed analysis of the state law applicable to this prevailing wage issue. Despite the fact that the prevailing wage law was somewhat unsettled for the projects at issue (since only more recent directive from the State Department of Industrial Relations provided clarification on which trades were covered under public works projects), G&A went ahead and filed a class action law suit on behalf of the affected tugboat captains and deckhands.  After several year of engaging in various steps in the class action litigation, and after Intervening and participating in  a related Petition for a Writ of Mandate filed by the employee’s union, the dispute ultimately went to mediation though the California Court of Appeal and settled for $5.2 million. Since the time this class action was litigated and resolved, tugboat captains and deckhands now properly receive prevailing wages at the appropriate wage rate and overtime pay for work above 8 hours a day on all similar public works projects in California.

Class Action for Misclassified Exempt Employees Settles for $1.4 Million

Wednesday, September 17th, 2008

In 2003, Goyette & Associates represented plaintiffs on behalf of a class of approximately 200 analysts who were or had been employed by two financial institutions. Ina confidential, court-approved settlement, Goyette & Associates achieved a total recovery of $1.4 million on claims of nonpayment of earned overtime wages, missed meal and break periods, and  mis-classification of employees as exempt form overtime laws.