To our surprise, not everyone agreed with us that the Pioneer Electronics case was of interest to wage and hour attorneys. Defense attorneys were quick to point out that Pioneer Electronics was a consumer case, and argued, both in briefs and in a few articles we read, that this distinction was important. It wasn't long before a published opinion addressed the contention.
In Belaire-West Landscaping, Inc. v. Superior Court, plaintiffs Sebastian Rodriguez and Jose Luis Mosqueda filed a putative class action lawsuit against their former employer, alleging wage and hour violations. During precertification discovery, the trial court granted a motion to compel Belaire-West Landscaping to provide the names and contact information of all current and former employees, and approved a proposed notice to those individuals that would have required them to object in writing in order to prevent information about them from being disclosed to the plaintiffs. The employer filed a writ petition, arguing that the Supreme Court's decision should apply only to consumer cases, not employment actions. The court denied the writ petition.
Applying Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court 40 Cal.4th 360 (Pioneer), we conclude that the opt-out notice adequately protects the privacy rights of the current and former employees involved. We deny the writ. ...
While it is unlikely that the employees anticipated broad dissemination of their contact information when they gave it to Belaire-West, that does not mean that they would wish it to be withheld from a class action plaintiff who seeks relief for violations of employment laws. Just as the dissatisfied Pioneer customers could be expected to want their information revealed to a class action plaintiff who might obtain relief for the defective DVD players (Pioneer, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 371-372), so can current and former Belaire-West employees reasonably be expected to want their information disclosed to a class action plaintiff who may ultimately recover for them unpaid wages that they are owed. ...
As the Pioneer court pointed out, the identity of potential members of a class is usually discoverable, and the disclosure of this contact information is neither unduly personal nor overly intrusive. (Pioneer, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 373.) Here, as in Pioneer, the court’s order imposed vital limits, requiring written notice of the proposed disclosure to all current and former employees and providing them with the opportunity to object to the release of their contact information to plaintiffs. Just as in Pioneer, the court’s order here involved no serious invasion of privacy. ...
Petitioners express concern that an employee might “dispose[] of the notice in the trash without opening it, or ignore[] the notice because of lack of recognition or interest,” but the likelihood that the notice would be overlooked or mistakenly discarded as junk mail appears smaller here than in Pioneer, supra, 40 Cal.4th 360: A communication from a current or former employer is more likely to command a recipient’s attention than a mailing from an electronics manufacturer, and it is doubtful that it would be mistaken for advertising or junk mail. The balance of opposing interests here tilts even more in favor of the court’s disclosure order than it did in Pioneer, because at stake here is the fundamental public policy underlying California’s employment laws. “‘[T]he prompt payment of wages due an employee is a fundamental policy of this state.’
You can download the full text of Belaire-West Landscaping here in pdf or Word format.
Comments