Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> Wage & Hour - Development & Highlights
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Labor & Employment Law
: Wage & Hour - Development & HighlightsClasses and Sub-Classes: The Fun Never Ends For FedEx
By Mark E. Tabakman, Esq.
A federal judge in California has certified five sub-classes of drivers alleging FedEx Corp. bilked them of pay for missed meal periods, off-the-clock work and working split shifts. The Judge found that common issues, a requirement of class-action certification, predominated in the five sub-classes of workers.
Three of the sub-classes relate to meal periods. The first sub-class consists of workers not paid for meal periods lasting less than 30 minutes. The second sub-class consists of workers alleging they were not't paid for missed or untimely meal periods between April 14, 2006, and March 25, 2007. The third meal-period sub-class, meanwhile, consists of drivers alleging FedEx did not't pay them for meal breaks taken after four and a half hours of work but before five and a half hours of work between March 6, 2007, and the present. The fourth sub-class approved by the judge alleges they never received the extra hour of pay that was due to them for working a split shift. The final approved sub-class consists of workers claiming they performed approved preliminary and postliminary work (i.e. before and after the shift) without pay.
The FedEx drivers' meal claims relate to a California statute currently in dispute. The law requires employers who fail to provide a meal or rest period to pay the worker for an additional hour of work at their regular rate of pay. California's wage law also requires employers who fail to provide meal or rest breaks in accordance with certain procedures – such as giving employees a 30-minute meal period for every five hours worked – also must compensate workers for their time.
Two California courts of appeal have ruled that 'provide' only means employers must make meal breaks available and not ensure workers take them. However, the California Supreme Court has recently granted review of the two cases.
The point is that one large class can be broken down into component parts. In such an instance, workers are deemed similarly situated to other workers within the overall class, but need be similar to all of the workers in the class.
Full post as published by Wage & Hour - Development & Highlights on May 11, 2009 (boomark / email).
FedEx
Ground Business Model Wins Class Action in Washington
Kentucky lawyers
fraud case ends in mistrial.
Kia Motors America, Inc.
Kia Class Action Ends in $6 Million Verdict for Plaintiffs in NJ
Richard Mellon Scaife
Billionaire divorce lawsuit ends in a $725,000 a month settlement.









