Class Action

New UCL restitution opinion: Grodensky v. Artichoke Joe's Casino

By Kimberly A. Kralowec

In Grodensky v. Artichoke Joe's Casino, ___ Cap.App.4th ___ (Mar. 11, 2009), the Court of Appeal (First Appellate District, Division Two) held that employees may recover as UCL "restitution" tips that their employer unlawfully took from them, even though the employer then paid the tips to others (here, to shift managers whom the Labor Code prohibits from sharing in tips). Slip op. at  23-32.  The opinion also has an interesting discussion of attorneys' fees under the private attorney general doctrine (Code Civ. Proc. section 1021.5).  Id. at 34-42. 

Incidentally, the opinion creates a split in authority with Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens, 170 Cal.App.4th 466 (2009), respecting whether the Labor Code provisions governing tips carry a private right of action. Id. at 13-23. 

Full post as published by The UCL Practitioner on March 19, 2009 (boomark / &linkurl=http://www.uslaw.com/library/Class_Action/New_UCL_restitution_opinion_Grodensky_v_Artichoke_Joes_Casino.php?item=418345' rel=nofollow title='The UCL Practitioner'>email).