Magadia v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., No. 19-16184, 2021 WL 2176584 (9th Cir., May 28, 2021) - Summary: An employee lacks Article III standing to bring a PAGA claim in.
In the past few weeks, federal and state decisions in California regarding various employment-related claims in California, but particularly addressing California’s demanding pay.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
The pandemic seems not to have slowed down state and local lawmakers. Indeed, over 100 new labor and employment laws and ordinances are scheduled to take effect between July 1, 2021 and November 1, 2021. Notably, while some of these laws address COVID-19 and topics concerning return-to-work, most mark a renewed attention to other hot-topic labor and employment issues. Not surprisingly, a number of states and localities have adopted their own nondiscrimination statutes or expanded the same to recognize new protected classifications. Other popular topics include independent contractors and worker classification, marijuana use and drug testing in the workplace, and repairs to state unemployment insurance systems.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
On May 28, 2021, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals handed Walmart a groundbreaking win in a wage-and-hour class and California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA ) action. Reversing a nearly $102 million verdict against Walmart, the Ninth Circuit held in
Magadia v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., No. 19-16184, (1) that an employee does not have standing to bring a PAGA claim in federal court for a Labor Code violation that he or she did not suffer personally, and (2) that employers may true up overtime rates later affected by bonus or incentive payments by making lump sum payments on wage statements without specifying a corresponding hourly rate.