California Supreme Court:
1. Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.: On April 6, 2016 the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of Righetti Glugoski's clients. The California Supreme Court agreed with Righetti Glugoski by rejecting interpretations of California statutes made by two federal court judges. The Supreme Court not only ruled that all working employees shall be provided with suitable seats when the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats, but also set forth the factors which should guide lower court decisions.
2. Gentry v. Circuit City Stores: On August 30, 2007 the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of Righetti Glugoski's client by reversing lower court decisions. The Supreme Court held that courts may invalidate arbitration agreements that purport to waive the employee's right to pursue class actions. The court directed the lower courts to invalidate such clauses if class arbitration would be a significantly more effective means of vindicating the employee's subject statutory rights as compared to individual arbitration.
3. Sav-on v. Superior Court: On August 26, 2004, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of Righetti Glugoski's clients by reversing a court of appeal decision and reinstating the trial court's class certification order. The Sav-on decision remains a seminal case in the areas of class action and employee rights litigation. The Supreme Court affirmed the discretion of trial courts to certify not only class actions generally, but also exemption misclassification cases specifically.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals:
1. Nisha Brown et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.: On June 8, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Righetti Glugoski's clients when it upheld the district court's order granting class certification in a case seeking penalties on behalf of thousands of Wal-Mart cashiers who contend they were not allowed to sit even though the nature of their work reasonably permitted the use of seats. By rejecting Wal-Mart's arguments the case now returns to the district court where Wal-Mart faces a class of workers accusing the company of violating California law by failing to provide seats for its cashiers.
2. Rutti v. Lojack Corporation, Inc.: On March 2, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Righetti Glugoski's clients when it reconsidered and reversed its own earlier decision. The Court reversed a district court decision by holding that an employee required by his employer to travel to and from work in a company vehicle was entitled to compensation under California law for his commute time where the employee was under the control of the employer during the commute.
3. Green v. Bank of America
- First Appeal: On February 3, 2013 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Righetti Glugoski's clients by holding that the district court (Judge Manuel Real) erred. The Court of Appeal held that (a) the National Banking Act does not preempt California's wage and hour regulations, and (b) the district court erred in finding that employees must request a seat before the employer is required to provide one. View Decision.
- Second Appeal: After returning to the district court following the first appeal, the district judge dismissed the case again. On October 13, 2015 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals again reversed the district court judge finding that sufficient notice had been provided to the bank under the PAGA. The Court of Appeal then took the unusual step of removing Judge Real from the case and reassigning the case to a new judge.
California Court of Appeals
1. Roberto Martinez vs. Joe's Crab Shack: On November 10, 2014, the California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order denying class certification. Ruling in favor of Righetti Glugoski's clients, the Court of Appeal held that a class action remains the best method of resolving wage-and-hour claims and that individual issues will not necessarily overwhelm common issues when a case involves exemptions premised on how employees spend the workday.
2. Crab Addison, Inc. vs. Superior Court: On December 30, 2008, the Court of Appeal held that employers are required to provide contact information (names, addresses and phone numbers) of other aggrieved employees to the other side in discovery without any need to show prior consent of the employees. (View Decision)
3. Home Depot v. Superior Court (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 210 (review denied March 16, 2011) (holding PAGA applicable to seating claims on grounds that Labor Code §1198 incorporates IWC Wage Order protections
4. Bright v. 99 Cents Only Stores (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1472 (review denied February 16, 2011) (same);
5. Hall v. Rite Aid Corporation, 226 Cal.App.4th 278 (2014, review denied August 27, 2014);
6. Elder v. Schwan Foods:
- First Appeal: On May 12, 2011, the California Court of Appeal reversed a trial court order that failed to award restitution and penalties following a jury verdict in favor of Righetti Glugoski's client. The Court of Appeal ordered the trial court to reconsider the equitable remedies of restitution and civil penalties.
- Second Appeal: On February 27, 2013, the employer contended it was deprived of its right to a statement of decision because the trial court did not issue a tentative decision. The Court of Appeal found that there was no prejudicial error and there was sufficient evidence in the record to award restitution and civil penalties for violation of California's overtime laws.
National Labor Relations Board
Numerous victories on behalf of Righetti Glugoski's clients based on grievances filed at the NLRB in cases alleging that employers engaged in unfair labor practices by demanding mandatory individual arbitration of employee disputes. Righetti Glugoski has been successful obtaining orders that employers arbitration programs violate the NLRA and ordering that employers cease and desist from NLRA violations.
3. Network Capital
(View Decision )
Appointed by the Hon. Marvin E. Aspen to serve as co-lead counsel in multidistrict litigation against Trans Union in the Northern District of Illinois. The litigation focused on whether Trans Union violated the FCRA when it used its vast database of financial information -- which includes the confidential financial information of most adults in the United States -- to create and sell "target marketing" lists to advertisers. After nearly a decade of litigation and multiple appeals the case resulted in a settlement with Trans Union valued at more than $100 million (including $75 million in cash). The settlement obtained final approval from the Hon. Robert Gettleman on September 17, 2008. In August 2009, all appeals of the order approving the settlement were dismissed and the settlement became final. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, credit monitoring relief was distributed to class members and a cash payment to class members took place. We believe the Trans Union certified class is the largest class of individuals ever certified in the United States.