Lane Powell has extensive wage and hour experience. We have represented many clients in wage and hour audits with the Department of Labor (“DOL”) and the Washington Department of Labor and Industries (“DL&I”). In addition, Lane Powell has defended more than 100 class action lawsuits in the past ten years for clients in the areas of employee benefits, health care, antitrust, securities, insurance, retail and commercial business practices, home mortgage, employment discrimination and products liability, with more than 25 of those cases in the area of wage and hour class actions under both federal and state law. Among the clients we have represented in wage and hour class action litigation are Wal Mart, Nordstrom, Frito-Lay, Iowa Beef Packers, Tyson Foods and Dreyers Grand Ice Cream.
Contact
Nancy Anderson
206.223.7983
andersonn@lanepowell.com
Leah Lively
503.778.2199
livelyl@lanepowell.com
Wage and Hour
Wage and Hour
Wage and Hour
Representative Transactions
The following list is a sampling of some of the cases we have defended.
- Thiebes, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. CV98-KI (Federal District Court, District of Oregon). We represented Wal-Mart in an FLSA wage and hour collective action alleging off-the-clock work by retail employees.
- Kalata v. Nordstrom, Inc., Case No. C02-2507R (Federal District Court, Western District of Washington). We represented Nordstrom, Inc. in this FLSA wage and hour collective action, alleging managers are improperly classified as exempt employees.
- Alvarez, et al. v. Iowa Beef Packers, Inc., Case No. CT-98-5005-RHW (Federal District Court, Eastern District of Washington, on appeal by both parties to the Ninth Circuit). We represented the defendant IBP in this class action involving state and federal claims for minimum wage and overtime, including claims alleging unpaid overtime for meal and rest breaks.
- Chavez, et al. v. Iowa Beef Packers, Inc. and Tyson Foods, Inc., Case No. No. CT-01-5093-EFS (Federal District Court, Eastern District of Washington). We represented the defendants IBP and Tyson Foods in this class action involving state and federal claims for minimum wage and overtime, including claims alleging unpaid overtime for meal and rest breaks. Lane Powell appeared as amicus curiae on behalf of IBP.
- Wingert v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc., 146 Wn.2d 841, 50 P.3d 256 (2002). We represented defendant Yellow Freight Systems, Inc. in this action by approximately 90 plaintiffs involving allegations of unpaid rest breaks while working overtime.
- Huntley, et al. v. Frito-Lay, Inc., Case No. 96-2-04926-3 SEA (King County Superior Court, Seattle, Washington). We represented Frito-Lay in this wage and hour class action, negotiating a successful resolution of the case, including a new collective bargaining agreement.
- Pinget, et al. v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc., Case No. 02-2-25028-9 KNT (King County Superior Court, Kent, Washington). We represented Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream in this wage and hour class action suit.
- Harper, et al. v. Pacific Coast Publishing, Ltd., Civil Case No. 00-2-00553-6 (Superior Court of Washington, Thurston County). We represented the defendant in this wage and hour class action involving sales representatives responsible for selling advertising space in telephone directories.
- UFCW Local 1001, et al. v. Ernst Home Center, Inc., Case No. A98-01866 (Federal Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Washington). We represented Ernst in this wage and hour class action.
- Abell, et al. v. Northwest Toys Co., et al., Case No. 98-2-28824-8 SEA (King County Superior Court, Seattle, Washington). We represented the defendants in this wage and hour class action.
- Vukich v. Nabisco, Inc., Case No. 00-2-13898-9 SEA (King County Superior Court, Seattle, Washington). We represented Nabisco in this wage and hour class action.
- Slaney, et al. v. Independent Order of Foresters, Case No. 98-2-02696-1 SEA (King County Superior Court, Seattle, Washington). We represented the defendant IOF in this wage and hour class action involving insurance sales representatives.
- Skeen et al. v. Nordstrom, Inc., Case No. CV-98-0162 JSL (Federal District Court, Central District of California, Los Angeles). We represented Nordstrom in this employee wage class action.
- Dyer, et al. v. H & M Bay, Inc., et al., Case No. 98-2-01152-1 SEA (King County Superior Court, Seattle, Washington). We represented the defendants in this class action overtime suit.
- Preistly v. Mervyn’s, et al., Case No. 777626 (Superior Court of California, Orange County).We acted as a legal consultant to defendant’s counsel on class action issues in this lawsuit seeking back wages.
- Hess v. Mervyn’s, et al., Case No. 777130 (Superior Court of California for Orange County). We acted as a legal consultant to defendant’s counsel on class action issues in this lawsuit seeking back wages.
- Rios, et al. v. Nordstrom, Inc., Case No. CV-96-4927 JSL (Federal District Court, Central District of California, Los Angeles). We represented Nordstrom in this wage and hour class action under California state law.
- Langlois, et al. v. Deja Vu, Inc., Case No. C96-331Z (Federal District Court, Western District of Washington). We represented a certain number of the defendants in this wage and hour collective action.
- Jacobs, et al. v. Nordstrom, Inc., et al., Case No. 017283/96 (Supreme Court, County of Queens, State of New York). We represented Nordstrom in this wage and hour class action under New York state law.
- Haines, et al. v. Future Shop, Case No. 9803-01653 (Multnomah County Circuit Court, Portland, Oregon). We represented the defendant Future Shop in this wage and hour class action.
- Abbott, et al. v. Sleep Country USA, Inc., Case No. 96-2-18800-0 (King County Superior Court, Seattle, Washington). We represented Sleep Country USA in this wage and hour class action seeking overtime pay under state law.
- Ryder, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp., Case No. 95-2-03738-1 (King County Superior Court, Seattle, Washington). We acted as a legal consultant to defendant’s counsel on class action issues in this lawsuit seeking back wages.
- Robbins, et al. v. Magnolia Hi-Fi, Inc., Case No. 94-2-26949-6 (King County Superior Court, Seattle, Washington). We defended Magnolia Hi-Fi in this class action lawsuit seeking back overtime pay and exemplary damages.
- Stallworth, et al. v. Gordon Skoog Construction Co., Case No. 92-2-13406-3 (King County Superior Court, Seattle, Washington). We acted as a legal consultant to defendant’s counsel on class action issues in this lawsuit seeking back wages.
- UFCW, et al. v. Nordstrom, Inc., Case No. 90-2-04282-1 (King County Superior Court, Seattle, Washington). We represented Nordstrom in this wage and hour class action lawsuit involving more than 100,000 employee class members.
Wage and Hour
Avoid Wage and Hour Violations
Anderson, Nancy W.Employers may face more scrutiny over pay practices in 2010, thanks to a new report claiming that wage-and-hour violations are running rampant in the workplace. Expressing concern, Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis has promised to step up enforcement and the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced it would hire 250 additional investigators to snare violators. [...]
New Required EEOC Compliance Posters Now Available
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) recently released a new “Equal Employment Opportunity is the Law” poster. The new poster includes updates from the Department of Labor and reflects current federal employment discrimination laws (including the ADA Amendments Act of 2008). The new poster also includes changes to the law, such as the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, which took effect November 21, 2009.
Oregon Expands Religious Accommodation Rights at Work
On July 16, 2009, Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski signed into law the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act (“OWRFA”). The new statute takes effect on January 1, 2010.
OWRFA expands existing protections against discrimination based on religion in the workplace by requiring employers to reasonably accommodate an employee’s use of leave time for engaging in religious observance or practices. OWRFA also prohibits employers from instituting occupational requirements that restrict employees from wearing religious clothing, from taking time off for holy days, or from participating in a religious observance or practice. The OWRFA contains only one occupation-specific exception: Public school teachers will be prohibited from wearing religious dress while “engaged in the performance of duties as a teacher.”
Oregon Supreme Court Rejects Private Right of Action for Missed Rest Breaks
On May 15, 2008, in Gafur v. Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital and Medical Center, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that no private right of action exists for missed rest periods under Oregon law. View full article (PDF).
Alaska Supreme Court Unanimously Affirms Trial Court Award of Overtime Pay, Prejudgment Interest, Penalties and Attorneys’ Fees to Incorrectly Classified Employee
A recent unanimous Alaska Supreme Court decision, Geneva Woods Pharmacy Inc. v. Thygesen, Opinion No. 6255 (April 25, 2008), serves as a reminder to employers of the financial risks of improperly classifying employees as “exempt” from state or federal overtime pay requirements and of failing to maintain accurate records of hours worked for nonexempt employees. Properly classifying employees can be especially tricky where, as in Geneva Woods Pharmacy, an employee is properly classified as exempt under federal law, but is nonexempt under state law. View full article (PDF).
The Most Important Ten Minutes: The Oregon Court of Appeals Creates a Private Right of Action for Missed or Short Rest Breaks
The Oregon Court of Appeals has decided that an employee has a private right of action against an employer for unpaid wages if the employer fails to provide paid rest breaks to the employee as required by Oregon law. However, the employee does not have a private right of action against the employer for failure to provide unpaid meal breaks.
In Gafur v. Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital and Medical Center, 213 Or.App. 343, 161 P.3d 319 (2007), the plaintiffs brought claims against their employer for regular and penalty wages based on allegations that the employer failed to provide paid rest breaks and unpaid meal breaks. The plaintiffs also alleged a breach of contract claim based on the theory that mandatory meal and rest breaks were inherent in their employment contract. View full article (PDF).
Washington Court of Appeals Expands the Basis for Awarding Statutory Attorney’s Fees to Successful Employee Claimants
In a unanimous decision, a three judge panel of the Washington Court of Appeals, Division One, awarded attorney’s fees under RCW 49.48.030 in a case where the plaintiff’s claim for lost future wages was not based on a contractual obligation or a wrongful termination. View full article (PDF).
Department of Labor and Industries Adopts New Payroll Deduction Regulations That Take Effect on January 1, 2006
Swale, SarahOn January 1, 2006, the existing Washington state wage deduction regulation (WAC 296-126-025) will be replaced with three new regulations: (1) WAC 296-126-025, which will govern deductions from an employee’s final wages; (2) WAC 296-126-028, which will govern deductions from a current employee’s wages during ongoing employment; and (3) WAC 296-126-030, which will provide a new procedure that employers can use to make deductions from employee wages to correct for prior wage overpayments. View full article (PDF).
United States Supreme Court Finds Walk Time Between Changing Areas and Work Stations Compensable Under the FLSA and Portal-to-Portal Act for Employees
In a unanimous decision issued on November 8, 2005, in IBP, inc. v. Alvarez, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Alvarez v. IBP, inc., 339 F.3d 894 (2003), holding that the time employees at a meat processing plant spent walking between the changing area and the employees’ work stations was compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947. View full article (PDF).
New State Regulations on Exempt
The Washington Department of Labor & Industries (L&I) recently adopted a new “salary basis” regulation to clarify what requirements must be satisfied with respect to an executive, administrative or professional employee’s salary in order to ensure that the employee is exempt from state minimum wage and overtime requirements. View full article (PDF).
United States Supreme Court Rules Illegal Alien Worker Not Entitled to Backpay
In Hoffman Plastic Compounds v. National Labor Relations Board, 00-1595 (Mar. 27,2002), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a foreign national who was not authorized to work in the United States was not entitled to backpay from the employer who fired him for union organizing activities. View full article (PDF).
Washington Court Restricts Overtime Exemption for Commissioned Employees to Sales Personnel Only
Continuing its recent trend of limiting exemptions from the overtime provisions of the Washington Minimum Wage Act, the Washington Court of Appeals has held that the exemption from overtime pay for commissioned employees of retail and service establishments applies only to those employees working principally as salespersons. View full article (PDF).
Avoiding Wage and Hour Pitfalls
Ostroff, Paul M.Stevason, John C.
This material was presented as part of “2000 Labor and Employment Law Seminar (Portland),” an event produced by Lane Powell. View full article (PDF).