Best Best & Krieger News Feed

BB&K Wins Overtime Ruling in Appellate Court for Client

27 Jan 2016 00:00:00 -0800

Best Best & Krieger LLP Partner Howard Golds and Associate Elizabeth Han secured a ruling from a California Appellate Court that a business client’s formula for calculating an employee’s overtime rate on flat sum bonuses paid in the same pay period in which they are earned is lawful.

Dart Container Corporation of California was sued in Riverside Superior Court by a former employee, who sought class action status, claiming that Dart did not properly compute bonus overtime under California law. Dart’s written policy is to pay a $15 attendance bonus to employees who attend their regularly-scheduled weekend shift. Dart included the attendance bonus when calculating the regular rate for overtime purposes, but the former employee claimed that Dart used an incorrect formula in doing so.

When the Superior Court dismissed the case in favor of Dart on summary judgment, the former employee appealed. The Fourth District Court of Appeal published an opinion upholding the lower court’s ruling. The Court of Appeal agreed with the BB&K team’s argument that Dart’s overtime flat sum bonus formula complies with federal law, which is lawful because there is no California law on point.

To read the full opinion in Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp. of California, click here.

BB&K Secures Employment Discrimination Lawsuit Dismissal for Client

22 May 2015 00:00:00 -0800

Best Best & Krieger LLP attorneys Cynthia Germano and Sarah Mohammadi obtained dismissal of an employee discrimination lawsuit on behalf of the Los Angeles Community College District.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Johnson granted LACCD’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff, Ewan Paymah, failed to provide evidence to support his claims that he was discriminated against because of race, ethnicity or religion. Johnson wrote in his ruling that LACCD “has shown that there were legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for each of the employment actions alleged” by Paymah, an adjunct professor at the college.

In addition, Johnson agreed with the arguments asserted by Germano that Paymah failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing the lawsuit. The dismissal followed a May 7 hearing.

BB&K Attorneys Win Appellate Decision in Favor of Rialto

23 Nov 2010 00:00:00 -0800

This action was filed by Rialto firefighter Nicolas Delia against the City, its former Fire Chief (Steven Wells), two current Battalion Chiefs (Frank Bekker and Mike Peel) and the City’s legal counsel (Steve Filarsky) alleging that Delia’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search was violated when Chief Wells issued a written order to Delia (based on Filarsky’s legal advice) that he show defendants some fiberglass building insulation that was located inside his house. The question of whether the insulation was actually installed in Delia's house was important for a disciplinary investigation.

On January 12, 2009, BB&K attorneys Howard Golds and Cynthia Germano filed a summary judgment motion on behalf of the City, Wells, Bekker and Peel in the Central District of California in which we argued that a Monell claim could not be maintained against the City because it had no policy or custom regarding the searching of employee homes and on behalf of the three individual City employee defendants based on the defense of “qualified immunity.” The District Court ruled in favor of all defendants on March 9, 2009 finding not only that no Monell claim had been stated and that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity but also that no Fourth Amendment violation had taken place. On April 3, 2009, Delia appealed the District Court’s decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On September 9, 2010, the Ninth Circuit in a published decision unanimously upheld the District Court's granting of Summary Judgment in favor of the City and the three City employees. The Court reversed as to the claim against Filarsky and that portion of the case will now be remanded back to District Court.

BB&K Successfully Defends Client in Racial Discrimination/Retaliation Case

18 May 2008 00:00:00 -0800

Daniel Villanueva v. City of Colton

BB&K Partner John Higginbotham represented the City of Colton in Daniel Villanueva v. City of Colton. The case involved claims by an employee that he was suspended and later included in a reduction-in-force because of his race, and in retaliation for whistle-blowing activity. BB&K prevailed on summary judgment, and then brought a motion for recovery of its attorney fees against the employee. The motion was granted in its entirety, resulting in a judgment of over $44,000 against the plaintiff. On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in its entirety and decided to publish the case.

BB&K Settles Complex Overtime Class Action For Nuisance Value

16 May 2008 00:00:00 -0800

John Crowe v. BB&K Client

BB&K Partner John Higginbotham represented a local trucking company in a overtime class action involving a class of over 200 drivers, none of whom had ever been paid overtime. The class was represented by a successful attorney who had achieved large settlements from numerous other similarly situated trucking companies in the five years leading up to this case. Rather than simply going through the motions and ultimately allowing its client to write a very large check, BB&K asserted a novel defense that California’s overtime was preempted by federal law due to the fact that some of the product hauled by its client had previously been brought into California by rail, and that the ultimate delivery of the product by truck was a “continuation” of interstate commerce. Facing the prospect of complete defeat, the class settled the claim for literally pennies on the dollar.

BB&K Settles Wage And Hour Class Action For Pennies On The Dollar

03 May 2008 00:00:00 -0800

Carlton Morris v. BB&K Client

BB&K Partners John Higginbotham and Michael Summerour represented an international trucking company in a class action involving multiple alleged wage and hour violations, a class of thousands of drivers and potential eight figure liability. Before plaintiffs could move for class certification, BB&K brought a motion for summary judgment based on the novel argument that plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the commerce clause in the United States Constitution. Shortly before that motion was to be heard, class counsel agreed to settle the case for approximately three percent of their claimed damages.

PERB Board Limits Jurisdiction for Breach of Contract

11 Dec 2006 00:00:00 -0800

BB&K Partner Woody Merrill defends school district’s right to alter health benefit terms in Teachers Association collective bargaining agreement

A three-member panel of the Public Employee Relations Board (Board) recently decided in favor of El Centro Elementary School District (District) in the matter of El Centro Elementary Teachers Association v. El Centro Elementary School District. Best Best & Krieger (BB&K) Partner, William “Woody” Merrill successfully defended the District before the Board.

The El Centro Elementary Teachers Association (Association) claimed that the District, by altering health benefit contributions for retired leaders in the collective bargaining agreement, had violated the Education Employment Relations Act (EERA). Merrill, on behalf of the District, argued that because health benefits for retirees are a permissive subject rather than a mandatory subject of negotiations, a unilateral alteration of the term could not constitute an unfair labor practice.

The Board noted that the jurisdiction of PERB is limited only to those violations that are unfair practices, and rejected the Association’s argument to extend PERB’s jurisdiction to include permissive subjects of negotiation included in collective bargaining agreements. The Board found in favor of the District, concluding that, while a violation of a permissive term may constitute a breach of contract, it does not also constitute an unfair labor practice. The decision clears the District of any liability for an unfair labor practice.

“This decision is significant to schools and public agencies because it is important to avoid multiple forums and multiple remedies for the same claim,” says Merrill.

BB&K Prevails on Summary Judgment in Discrimination Case; Recoups Nearly All Attorneys’ Fees for Client

27 Apr 2006 00:00:00 -0800

Richard Gonzales v. City of Colton

BB&K Partners John Higginbotham and Cynthia Germano obtained summary judgment and a substantial attorney fee award in favor of firm client, City of Colton, in San Bernardino County Superior Court. The case involved claims by a current employee that he was passed over for a promotion because of his race and in retaliation for whistle-blowing activity. The employee also sued two of his supervisors for retaliation, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The BB&K team eliminated the claims against the supervisors at the demurrer stage based on deficiencies in the employee's government tort claim. Subsequently, the BB&K team convinced the court that the promotional decision was fair and unbiased, and that the employee lacked any credible evidence of race discrimination or retaliation.

Following the summary judgment, the BB&K team brought a motion for recovery of its attorneys' fees against the employee. The motion was granted and the City was awarded the sum of $39,060.00, which represented over 93% of its attorneys' fees for the entire case.

Colton City officials were obviously ecstatic with the outcome and the firm's work on their behalf, particularly given the deterrent effect that this case may have on like-minded employees who might otherwise file similarly baseless employment lawsuits against the City.

BB&K Eliminates Discrimination Claims; Recoups Litigation Costs for Client

15 Aug 2005 00:00:00 -0800

Lorraine June v. City of Colton, et al.

BB&K Partner John Higginbotham represented the City of Colton in Lorraine June v. City of Colton, et al. The case involved claims by a long-time employee that she was constructively terminated because of a disability and that the City failed to reasonably accommodate her. The employee also sued her department director and the City Manager for various intentional torts. BB&K eliminated the claims against the individuals at the demurrer stage based on plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Tort Claims Act. BB&K then disposed of the rest of the case on summary judgment by showing that the actions it took against plaintiff were for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons unrelated to her disability. Judgment was entered in favor of the City and its employees for several thousand dollars in litigation costs.

BB&K Prevails on Summary Judgment in Discrimination/Wrongful Termination Case

19 Jul 2005 00:00:00 -0800

Mir Fattahi v. City of Corona, et al.

BB&K Partners Howard Golds and John Higginbotham represented the City of Corona in Mir Fattahi v. City of Corona, et al. The case involved claims by a Middle Eastern-origin employee that he was subjected to offensive comments about his race and religion by his supervisor and then terminated because of his national origin and religion. BB&K prevailed on summary judgment by convincing the court that plaintiff was terminated for poor performance and other reasons unrelated to plaintiff’s national origin or religion. Judgment was entered in favor of the City for its litigation costs.