Bluford v. Safeway

Issue: Labor/Employment
Court: Supreme Court of California

Questions Presented:
I. In order to comply with the minimum wage law must the employer separately and additionally compensate employees at an hourly rate for rest periods?

II.  In evaluating the community of interest criterion for class certification, is the trial court's discretion (and the appellate court's review) limited to considering the plaintiff's theory of recovery and plaintiff's supporting declarations, or may it also consider the defendant's affirmative defenses and evidence to the extent they demonstrate the absence of a community of interest, particularly as to the question of predominance?

RLC's Position:
The RLC urged the Supreme Court of California to grant a petition for review of the intermediate appellate court's novel interpretation of California wage and hour laws. The novel law, if left unchanged, will have a burdensome effect on California employers and the economy by requiring employers to pay non-hourly employees a separate hourly rate for rest breaks, even if the employees are already compensated for those rest breaks. Additionally, the Bluford decision will create an incredibly lax standard for class certification of wage and hour classes in California by leaving it in the court’s discretion to exclude defense evidence when determining class commonality.   

Case Outcome:
The Court denied the petition for review.

Procedural History and Case Documents:



 

 

 


 

 

Retail Litigation Center