SAN FRANCISCO (Legal Newsline) - The COVID pandemic will help a former Marshalls employee sue under California's Private Attorneys General Act.
The state's First Appellate District on Aug. 29 wrote plaintiff Robert LaCour had extra time to file his suit over what he says was a failure to reimburse employees' for the costs of using personal phones and vehicles for work purposes.
Marshalls said LaCour failed to file suit within one year and 65 days of the end of his employment in 2019 and that the claims were already resolved by a settlement in a similar case in federal court.
But the First District noted an executive order that extended the statutes of imitation in civil cases during the COVID pandemic, rejecting a Constitutional challenge raised by Marshalls.
"We can certainly imagine cases at the margins where a particular application of the Governor's (California Emergency Services Act) powers goes beyond what may be necessary to 'mitigate the effects' of the declared emergency - a matter on which, were it properly raised, we would owe the Governor considerable deferece in the absence of some demonstrated infringement of constitutional freedoms - but this is not a close case," the decision says.
"Boiled down to its essence, then, Marshalls' complaint is that, in authorizing the (Judicial Council) to adopt a longer suspension of several months, the Governor acted arbitrarily. Given the prevailing circumstances the Governor found Californians were facing in March and April 2020, we have no trouble disagreeing."
Marshalls also argued all allegations of Labor Code violations before Nov. 17, 2020, must be stricken from LaCour's complaint because of a settlement in an earlier PAGA action.
But one of the plaintiffs in that consolidated case (last name Paulino) had alleged off-the-clock work during time employees spent undergoing anti-theft bag checks at the end of their shifts.
"For us to say that, because Paulino 'could have' alleged a broader set of PAGA claims in Rodriguez - encompassing the raft of additional wage-and-hour violations LaCour seeks to pursue in this case under the principle that they arise out of the same legal 'injury' - and thus that the claim preclusive effect of the Rodriguez judgment bars this case, we would need proof that Paulino was deputized by the (Labor & Workforce Development Agency) to file suit on the broader set of PAGA claims that LaCour subsequently brought," the decision says.
"Nothing in the record shows that Paulino had that authority."
The case heads back to Alameda County Superior Court.