法官判定南加州'世界日報'賠償員工250萬美元,報社不服欲上訴.

Employees Prevail in Class Action Against Chinese Daily News

You may have read last week in the Los Angeles Times about a $2.5 million federal jury verdict in a wage and hour class action against the Chinese Daily News. Here are some more details.

The case is entitled Wang et al v. Chinese Daily News Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, case number 2:04-cv-01498-CBM-JWJ. Plaintiffs Lynne Wang, Yu Fang Ines Kai, and Hui Jung Pao, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed this suit on March 5, 2004, alleging multiple labor violations by Defendant Chinese Daily News, Inc. pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq. and the California Labor Code. Defendant publishes the largest Chinese language newspaper in North America. Plaintiffs are current and former employees of Defendant's Monterey Park office, which has nearly 200 employees. None of the Plaintiffs is a native English speaker, and some cannot read or write in English. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant violated California Labor laws by denying its employees the following protections: (1) overtime wages and statutory penalties to which they are entitled; (2) the opportunity to take meal and rest breaks or to receive appropriate penalties in lieu of such breaks; and (3) appropriate payroll records and itemized wage statements containing the information required by state law.

In November 2004, Judge Consuelo B. Marshall granted a motion certifying the class under FRCP 23(b)(2). The order provided that:

1. The class is certified with respect to the following claims set forth in the Plaintiff Complaint, and all issues and defenses applicable to such claims: Second Claim for Relief (failure to pay overtime compensation and other wages, failure to pay wages on termination, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to provide paid breaks and unpaid meal breaks, and failure to pay of one hour of additional pay for each missed break) and the Third Claim for Relief (unfair business practices under Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code 17200, et seq.). 2) The class is certified on behalf of all former, current, and future non-exempt employees of Defendants who worked at Chinese Daily News in Monterey Park, California at any time since March 5, 2000.

The case lead to several published trial court decisions. After a motion for reconsideration, the court issued a certification order published as Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc. (CD Cal., Jan. 20, 2005) 231 F.R.D. 602, pet.denied by Wang v. Chinese Daily News, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 29407 (9th Cir. Cal., Aug. 5, 2005). The court reasoned that the numerosity requirement was satisfied where the evidence presented by the employer indicated that approximately 40 current employees in the Monterey Park Office were classified as exempt. This left approximately 160 employees who were classified as non-exempt by the employer. The court also found that the employees set forth numerous common questions of law and fact arising from the employer's alleged pattern of violating state labor standards. Additionally, since the named plaintiffs raised the same Labor Code violations as other putative class members, their claims were typical of the class. Next, the court found that the class should be certified under Rule 23(b)(2). The court reasoned in part that the Second Claim for Relief appeared to be predominantly for monetary damages. Moreover, California's wage and hour laws did not provide an explicit, private right to injunctive relief.

The defendant's later motion to decertify the class action and collective action under the FLSA was denied at Wang v. Chinese Daily News, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43274 (C.D. Cal., May 9, 2006). Defendant argued that the class no longer fulfilled Rule 23(a)(1) or (a)(4) in light of the numerous opt outs filed. The Plaintiffs filed a motion to invalidate the opt outs.

The plaintiffs' motion resulted in an order invalidating opt-outs, requiring a curative notice, and restricting the defendant's communications with the class. Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., 236 F.R.D. 485 (June 6, 2006).

A court's authority under Rule 23(d) includes the invalidation of opt outs where the court finds that the opt outs were procured through fraud, duress, or other improper conduct. See, e.g., Kleiner v. First National Bank of Atlanta, 751 F.2d 1193, 1202 (11th Cir. 1985); Impervious Paint Indus. v. Ashland Oil, 508 F. Supp. 720 (D.Ky. 1981); Georgine v. Amchem, 160 F.R.D. 478 (E.D. Pa. 1995). Courts need to ensure that individual decisions to opt out are independent and free from coercion. Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth § 21.33 (2004). It is obviously in defendants' interest to diminish the size of the class and thus the range of liability by soliciting opt out requests. Kleiner, 751 F.2d at 1202. The danger of improper tampering is only enhanced when, as here, the class and the class opponent are involved in an ongoing business relationship. Id. Indeed, the relationship at issue in Kleiner was between a bank and its borrowers; here the relationship is even more potentially coercive where Defendants are the individuals' employers and there is evidence that implicit and explicit threats were made linking participation in the lawsuit with job security. ... Where there is unsupervised, unilateral communications with the putative class members, there is a particular risk of the sabotage of informed and independent decision-making. Kleiner, 751 F.2d at 1203.

Finally, a few months before trial, the court granted a summary judgment motion by the plaintiffs regarding liability on several counts. Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc. (C.D. Cal., 2006) 435 F. Supp. 2d 1042, 11 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 998. (under Cal. Lab. Code § 227.3 the employer's "buy back" of unused, but accrued, vacation days should have been computed by reference to the employees' regular rate of pay, the wage statements violated Cal. Lab. Code § 226, and reporters and salespersons were not exempt employees under FLSA). The court also ruled (at pages 1058-1059) that the hour of pay for break violations, under Labor Code § 226.7, was a wage, not a penalty.

After reading the various California appellate opinions on the matter, this Court finds that the stronger and more persuasive argument is in favor of characterizing the compensation as a wage, and thus applying the longer statute of limitations. Courts that have so found have noted that payments for violations of the meal and rest period requirements are restitutionary in nature. Employees earn an additional hour of pay when they have not been given their break. Such compensation is akin to the payment of overtime wages. Second, courts have noted that characterizing the compensation as wages is consistent with the definition of wages found in the California Labor Code, which is "all amounts for labor performed by employees." Under Section 226.7, employees are paid an amount for labor performed during their meal break or rest period. Third, courts have held that the statute is self-executing, which further supports that the compensation is not a penalty, The statute creates an affirmative duty on the employer to provide one hour's pay for each day an employee works through her meal or rest period. Thus, the employee is immediately entitled to the Section 226.7 payment, akin to the immediate entitlement to overtime. See, e.g., National Steel & Shipbuilding Co. v. Superior Court, 135 Cal. App. 4th 1072, 38 Cal. Rptr. 3d 253 (2004). The Court finds that Section 226.7 compensation is properly characterized as wages and accordingly finds that the four-year statute of limitation applies here.

The case went to trial in November 2006. In January 2007, after 16 days of trial, the jury returned a unanimous verdict awarded the employee $2.5 million for violating state and federal labor laws concerning overtime, meal and rest breaks. Congratulations to Virginia Keeny, Randy Renick, and Cornelia Dai, who represented the class at trial.

世界日報聲明 我們不是血汗工廠
對部分員工集體訴訟案 本報決提出上訴

本報部分員工就工資與工時提出集體訴訟案，聯邦法官上週四作出初步判決，本報特發表聲明如下:

由於法官的錯誤與偏見、原告與律師毫無根據的抹黑，洛杉磯「世界日報」決定就一項工資與工時集體訴訟案，向聯邦第九巡迴上訴法院提出上訴。

世界日報社長郭俊良說:「我們不是血汗工廠。我們不但沒有占新移民勞工的便宜，反而是給予員工優厚福利的好公司。本案原告王聯懿等人的指控完全不實。」

為什麼叫做「好公司」？第一，世界日報給予員工「零保費」的優厚醫療保險，包括眼睛與牙齒健保在內，員工不必繳一分錢保費。第二，世界日報已經實施將近20年「利潤分享」製度，每年提撥超過60萬元專款，依員工薪資的14%至15%，撥入員工退休基金帳戶。第三，除了月薪之外，世界日報每年還發給員工年終獎金，平均額度約相當於一個月的薪水。第四，不少員工每日上班時間不到八小時，但世界日報報仍發給八小時的工資。

請注意，這些福利都不是勞工法規定的必要措施。世界日報提供給員工的福利待遇，遠遠超過法律的要求。試問，美國有多少家公司，對員工有如此優厚的薪資福利及醫療保險？

再舉例來說，一個月薪3000元的員工，其時薪為17.3元，假設世界日報一周五天、一年52周，全年不給午餐時間，則「剋扣」午餐費總計約可省下4500元；然而這名員工光是15%的利潤分享，報社一年就要發給他5400元。如果本報真的要占所謂「不懂英語的新移民員工的便宜」，何苦還要如此麻煩「左手剋扣午餐費、右手發放紅利錢」，給員工那麼多福利？

但即便如此，法官馬歇爾（Consuelo Marshall）仍然對世界日報作出不利的裁決，其根本原因就是馬歇爾對本案早有偏見，並犯下許多法律上的錯誤，使世界日報未能得到公平的審判。

馬歇爾不公平、不合理的作為包括:第一，她禁止世界日報提出有利的證據，禁止世界日報傳喚員工當辯方證人，陪審團根本沒有機會聽到本報的證詞。

第二，她違法禁止156位本報員工自願退出集體訴訟。

第三，她禁止本報證明原告王聯懿等發動集體訴訟的動機，其實是與企圖藉此施壓成立工會有關。

第四，她在審判期間竟然幫助原告的專家作證。

第五，王聯懿曾向加州勞工局檢舉本報工資與工時違法，但該局2003年來本報查核後發現指控不實，但馬歇爾卻禁止讓這項結果呈堂。

第六，原告律師曾同意，與本報合雇第三方的工資計算專家，實地查核本報工資工時狀況。結果當專家初步報告指本報僅有數千元的疏漏，原告律師立即拒絕繼續查核，而馬歇爾也禁止讓這項查核報告呈堂。

第七，原告所聘損害賠償計算專家，究竟如何計算賠償金額，不得而知。本報要求查看其計算的公式和資料，馬歇爾均予拒絕。

第八，她裁定賠償的金額太過荒唐，如一名半職員工在職期間僅兩週、實領薪資715元，但馬歇爾竟判決該人因工作未休息，可獲賠6萬1000元。

第九，馬歇爾武斷認定世界日報隻是一份「社區報紙」，記者隻須改寫改寫 news release，不能算是「專業人員」，因此隻能列為「non-exempt」。顯然馬歇爾不了解記者工作的本質，也不了解世界日報的地位和規模。

第十，世界日報的sales必須天天出門，拜訪客戶爭取廣告，他們的年收入平均超過十萬元，馬歇爾卻認定他們屬於定時上下班的「n-on-exempt」人員。

諸如此類的荒謬判決還有很多。

在原告與律師的抹黑方麵，原告王聯懿絕大多數的時間是在家工作或自行安排採訪活動，並無主管監督，但她竟然聲稱即使在家中，她也無法得到任何休息。她在接受「紐約時報」訪問時聲稱，其主管塗改她與同事的工作時間表，以隱瞞實際的工作時間。此一說法根本是一大謊言，世界日報採訪組記者是在2007年才開始填報工作時間表，王聯懿早在2005年即已離職，當時根本沒有「工作時間表」，請問如何「塗改」？

另一原告閻晨陽先前聯邦勞工委員會作證時曾說，她在白天工作時間的空檔，經常接送孩子上下學、修車、去超市買菜等等。這就是原告等人所說的，記者在工作時沒有時間吃飯、沒有時間拿break休息嗎？

還有一位列名原告的工商服務部前員工黃奕森，經常在中午時間與同事外出吃飯，並利用上班時間為同事代為登記集資購買樂透彩券，人證物證俱在。但他仍聲稱自己沒時間休息、沒時間吃中飯。然而，諸如此類的許多證據，同樣無法讓陪審員聽到。

基於以上的理由，世界日報決定上訴到底，並確信美國司法製度終將還給本報清白。

2008-03-07