Firm News
April 27, 2010
Largest Discrimination Lawsuit in U.S. History Gets Green Light
After nearly a decade of pre-trial wrangling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled today in a 137-page decision that hundreds of thousands of female Wal-Mart current and former employees who have worked at Wal-Mart stores at any time since June 2001 are entitled to proceed with a massive class action lawsuit charging sex discrimination by America’s largest retailer.
The case (Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.), which Davis, Cowell & Bowe and other co-counsel has been litigating for 10 years, alleges systematic discrimination against women in compensation and promotions at Wal-Mart and its subsidiary, Sam’s Club, throughout the United States. It is the largest civil rights class action in history.
In announcing the decision today, a majority of the judges, who heard the case, found that it was a proper class action for female employees who have worked at Wal-Mart since the suit was filed in June 8, 2001. The class can seek lost pay and injunctive relief. It sent the case back to the lower court to determine whether women who were employed prior to that date may be part of the class and whether the class can seek punitive damages.
January 31, 2010
The Alameda County Superior Court issued a rebuke to Governor Schwarzenegger's order fuloughing all state employees for three days per month regardless of the employees' funding source. Davis, Cowell & Bowe represented the Union of American Physicians and Dentists in the case and argued that the furlough order, as applied to "special fund" or federally funded state employees, was an abuse of discretion, violated state statutes, and interfered with the various state agencies' ability to deliver needed state services. The court agreed and issued a writ of mandate commanding the State to cease furloughing the employees represented in the suit. Articles about the case have appeared in various newspapers: http://www.sacbee.com/budget/story/2431574.html; www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-furlough1-2010jan01,0,2238571.story
November 23, 2009
In Coast Hotels Ltd. v. UNITE HERE, WIPO Case No. D2009-1295 (2009), the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Arbitration and Mediation Center found the Union’s domain names were being used for legitimate non-commercial purposes in the Center’s first-ever case involving a union website critical of an employer. The Center, a United Nations agency that regulates the use of domain names by entities internationally, rejected the complaint filed by Coast Hotels, which argued that the Union had violated its trademark rights. The Union, represented by Davis, Cowell & Bowe, argued that it was making a fair, non-commercial use of the domain names www.coasthotels-badforbc.org and www.coasthotels-badforbc.info. The WIPO Center agreed, in a landmark decision that incorporated principles of international law, while also seeking to harmonize national laws and prior Center decisions. It found that the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights both recognize free speech and freedom of opinion, and that these were international, and not simply American, legal principles. The decision is available at: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2009/d2009-1295.html
November 12, 2009
In UNITE HERE Local 26 v. South Bay Boston Management, Inc., 587 F.3d 35 (2009), the First Circuit Court of Appeals held, as a matter of first impression in the federal appellate courts, that first contract interest arbitration clauses in a card-check neutrality agreements are enforceable. The Court also rejected the employer’s federal preemption claim as time-barred and compelled the employer to submit to interest arbitration even though the card-check agreement had expired. Davis Cowell & Bowe represented UNITE HERE Local 26 in the litigation.
September 14, 2009
Davis Cowell & Bowe welcomes Sophia Lai to its San Francisco office. Sophia is a recent graduate of Harvard Law School, where she was an executive editor of the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review and clerked at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center, Asian Law Caucus, Public Advocates, Greater Boston Legal Services, and the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination.
September 10, 2009
We are saddened by the death of Roland C. Davis, one of the firm's founding partners. Roland will always be remembered as a true pioneer in the field, well respected by both friends and adversaries. An obituary for Roland was published in the San Jose Mercury News and may be viewed here.
July 27, 2009
In a landmark decision, the Ninth Circuit ruled that individual business owners may be held liable for federal minimum wage and overtime violations and that their liability is not cut off when their company files a bankruptcy petition. Boucher v. Shaw, 572 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. July 27, 2009). Davis, Cowell & Bowe represented Plaintiffs in the case.
February 01, 2009
DCB welcomes new associate Adam Zapala to its San Francisco office. Adam comes to DCB from Bay Area Legal Aid, where he was a staff attorney.
January 12, 2009
DCB welcomes Sarah Grossman-Swenson to its San Francisco office. A recent graduate of the University of California at Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, Sarah was co-editor-in-chief of the Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law.
October 23, 2008
A California court granted the Monterey/Santa Cruz Counties Building & Construction Trades Council summary judgment on its claims that workers redeveloping the former Fort Ord on the Monterey Peninsula must be paid at prevailing wage rates. The judge’s ruling covers some $800 million in current and proposed commercial and residential construction work on the former military base. Monterey/Santa Cruz Building & Construction Trades Council et al. v. Marina Community Partners et al., No. M81343 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 2008).
DCB represented the Trades Council in all phases of the litigation.
October 09, 2008
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed a jury verdict in favor of Alexandra Cerpe in her lawsuit for sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge against the Fred A. Smith Management Company. Fred A. Smith Management Co. v. Cerpe, 957 A.2d 907 (D.C. 2008) The Court of Appeals also upheld the jury's award of compensatory and punitive damages.
The appeal was litigated by DCB and Murphy Anderson PLLC.
September 25, 2008
The Arizona Supreme Court upheld the Arizona Homeowners’ Bill of Rights initiative petition over constitutional and statutory challenges, clearing the way for the initiative to appear on the November 2008 ballot. Wilhelm v. Brewer, 219 Ariz. 45, 192 P.3d 404 (Ariz. 2008). The Homeowners Bill of Rights contains innovative consumer protections, including a mandatory ten-year warranty on new homes and a homeowner right to select the contractor to make defect repairs, a requirement that sellers disclose their relationships with financial institutions, and an obligation that model homes accurately reflect what is for sale.
DCB represented the Homeowners' Bill of Rights Committee, a coalition of labor and community groups, in developing and defending the initiative.
July 29, 2008
In Parra v. Bashas’, Inc., 536 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2008), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court ruling and held that current and former Hispanic workers at Bashas’ grocery stores had established commonality in their class action claims that Bashas’ engaged in pay discrimination in violation of Title VII. The Court of Appeals held that the plaintiffs had presented “extensive evidence showing Bashas', Inc.'s discriminatory pay practices commonly affected all members of the proposed class.”
The class is represented by DCB and the Impact Fund.
December 28, 2007
DCB attorneys this month won two decisions from California courts of appeal: in Plumbers Local 290 v. Rea, the court agreed with the union's interpretation of state prevailing wage laws as covering construction on common areas of a privately-owned office building where a public agency was leasing most of the building's office space. The court rejected the contrary view of the State Department of Industrial Relations. The court also awarded the union its attorneys' fees under the private attorney general doctrine.
In Rubalcava v. City of Los Angeles and UNITE HERE Local 11, the appellate court reversed a trial court's invalidation of a new ordinance setting a living wage requirement for hotels near LAX airport. The trial court had relied on the fact that an earlier ordinance also setting such a requirement had been rescinded in response to a referendum petition containing the necessary number of signatures to put the issue on the ballot. The appellate court held the differences between the new and old ordinances were significant enough that the constitutional right to referendum had not been violated by the City. (The City added assistance to the airport zone and promised not to regulate wages in other zones without first finding those zones met certain criteria).
September 13, 2007
DCB Files Class Action Lawsuits Against LAX-Area Hotels
Employees at eight LAX-area hotels – the Four Points, Marriott, Renaissance, Embassy Suites, Courtyard, Westin, Hilton and Radisson – filed class action lawsuits in Los Angeles Superior Court. The complaints, filed September 5, 2007, charge the hotels with violating a recently enacted city law requiring LAX area hotels to pay to their employees all tips and services fees collected on their behalf. Despite the law, the hotels have continued to pocket the fees that they are collecting on behalf of their employees.
For more information about the class action lawsuits, go to www.servicechargesforhotelworkers.com.
July 20, 2007
Union representation victory in Pittsburgh
UNITE HERE Local 57 was today certified as the collective bargaining representative of the workers at the Pittsburgh Renaissance Hotel. The certification was based on a check of authorization cards revealing that a majority of the workers want UNITE HERE to represent them.
This certification comes after a long struggle by the workers and the union. The hotel and the union signed an organizing agreement in 2001 that provided, among other things, that the employer would remain neutral with respect to its workers’ decision whether to join a union and that it would respect that choice by means of a card check. After receiving benefits under the agreement, the hotel announced it was reneging on its own promises to its workers and declared the agreement void. The union sued to enforce the agreement in federal court in Pittsburgh, where it prevailed, and the hotel appealed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the union’s position. Its landmark published opinion, written by then-Judge Michael Chertoff, rejected the hotel’s arguments, including ones that had been advanced by opponents of card check/neutrality agreements—and even a member of the National Labor Relations Board. First, the court held that federal labor law did not preempt the city’s labor-peace ordinance, which sought to protect the city’s investment in particular hospitality projects by requiring the project owner to get a labor-peace guaranty. Second, the court rejected the argument that Section 302 of the Taft Hartley Act renders unlawful agreements between employers and unions to set guidelines for employee organizing, including neutrality and card-check recognition. The Supreme Court denied the hotel’s request for additional review. Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees, Local 57 v. Sage Hospitality Resources, LCC, 390 F.3d 206 (3rd Cir. 2004), certiorari den. 544 U.S. 1010, 125 S.Ct. 1944, 161 L.Ed.2d 792, 177 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2192 (2005).
June 19, 2007
Major First Amendment victory for labor
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today denied enforcement to an NLRB order against union protest. Sheet Metal Workers Local 15 v. NLRB (Brandon Regional Medical Center), 491 F.3d 429 (D.C. Cir. 2007). This breakthrough decision holds that unions enjoy the same First Amendment rights as other protestors, even when they protest “secondary” entities who do business with employers in a labor dispute.
The case involved a mock funeral conducted by five members of the Sheet Metal Workers outside a Tampa-area hospital. The hospital used non-union contractors on its construction of a new hospital wing. The Union saw this policy as part of a “culture of corporate greed that also affects patient care." Its mock funeral criticized the Hospital’s patient care record. The funeral was peaceful, orderly, and non-threatening.
The NLRB nevertheless proceeded against the funeral as an unlawful secondary boycott. The NLRB convinced the 11th Circuit to affirm an interim injunction on this ground. On review of the final NLRB order, however, the D.C. Circuit held that the mock funeral enjoyed First Amendment protection as much as if it had been conducted by an anti-abortion group or environmentalist group.
Read how management-side law firms from Indiana to Baltimore are describing this decision.
The D.C. Circuit also rejected the NLRB’s rule that unions must give construction site owners advance assurance that their picketing will honor reserved gates.
UPDATE: Read the article in Slate decribing the decision.