世界日报vs员工集体诉讼:被判赔偿员工250万美元

世界日报声明 我们不是血汗工厂

对部分员工集体诉讼案 本报决提出上诉

本报部分员工就工资与工时提出集体诉讼案，联邦法官上週四作出初步判决，本报特发表声明如下: 由於法官的错误与偏见、原告与律师毫无根据的抹黑，洛杉矶「世界日报」决定就一项工资与工时集体诉讼案，向联邦第九巡迴上诉法院提出上诉。

世界日报社长郭俊良说:「我们不是血汗工厂。我们不但没有占新移民劳工的便宜，反而是给予员工优厚福利的好公司。本案原告王联懿等人的指控完全不实。」

为什麽叫做「好公司」？第一，世界日报给予员工「零保费」的优厚医疗保险，包括眼睛与牙齿健保在内，员工不必缴一分钱保费。第二，世界日报已经实施将近20 年「利润分享」制度，每年提拨超过60万元专款，依员工薪资的14%至15%，拨入员工退休基金帐户。第叁，除了月薪之外，世界日报每年还发给员工年终奖金，平均额度约相当於一个月的薪水。第四，不少员工每日上班时间不到八小时，但世界日报报仍发给八小时的工资。

请注意，这些福利都不是劳工法规定的必要措施。世界日报提供给员工的福利待遇，远远超过法律的要求。试问，美国有多少家公司，对员工有如此优厚的薪资福利及医疗保险？

再举例来说，一个月薪3000元的员工，其时薪为17.3元，假设世界日报一周五天、一年52周，全年不给午餐时间，则「剋扣」午餐费总计约可省下4500 元；然而这名员工光是15%的利润分享，报社一年就要发给他5400元。如果本报真的要占所谓「不懂英语的新移民员工的便宜」，何苦还要如此麻烦「左手剋扣午餐费、右手发放红利钱」，给员工那麽多福利？

但即便如此，法官马歇尔（Consuelo Marshall）仍然对世界日报作出不利的裁决，其根本原因就是马歇尔对本案早有偏见，并犯下许多法律上的错误，使世界日报未能得到公平的审判。

马歇尔不公平、不合理的作为包括:第一，她禁止世界日报提出有利的證据，禁止世界日报传唤员工当辩方證人，陪审团根本没有机会听到本报的證词。

第二，她违法禁止156位本报员工自愿退出集体诉讼。

第叁，她禁止本报證明原告王联懿等发动集体诉讼的动机，其实是与企图藉此施压成立工会有关。

第四，她在审判期间竟然帮助原告的专家作證。

第五，王联懿曾向加州劳工局检举本报工资与工时违法，但该局2003年来本报查核後发现指控不实，但马歇尔却禁止让这项结果呈堂。

第六，原告律师曾同意，与本报合雇第叁方的工资计算专家，实地查核本报工资工时状况。结果当专家初步报告指本报仅有数千元的疏漏，原告律师立即拒绝继续查核，而马歇尔也禁止让这项查核报告呈堂。

第七，原告所聘损害赔偿计算专家，究竟如何计算赔偿金额，不得而知。本报要求查看其计算的公式和资料，马歇尔均予拒绝。

第八，她裁定赔偿的金额太过荒唐，如一名半职员工在职期间仅两週、实领薪资715元，但马歇尔竟判决该人因工作未休息，可获赔6万1000元。

第九，马歇尔武断认定世界日报只是一份「社区报纸」，记者只须改写改写 news release，不能算是「专业人员」，因此只能列为「non-exempt」。显然马歇尔不了解记者工作的本质，也不了解世界日报的地位和规模。

第十，世界日报的sales必须天天出门，拜访客户争取广告，他们的年收入平均超过十万元，马歇尔却认定他们属於定时上下班的「n-on-exempt」人员。

诸如此类的荒谬判决还有很多。

在原告与律师的抹黑方面，原告王联懿绝大多数的时间是在家工作或自行安排采访活动，并无主管监督，但她竟然声称即使在家中，她也无法得到任何休息。她在接受「纽约时报」访问时声称，其主管塗改她与同事的工作时间表，以隐瞒实际的工作时间。此一说法根本是一大谎言，世界日报采访组记者是在2007年才开始填报工作时间表，王联懿早在2005年即已离职，当时根本没有「工作时间表」，请问如何「塗改」？

另一原告阎晨阳先前联邦劳工委员会作證时曾说，她在白天工作时间的空档，经常接送孩子上下学、修车、去超市买菜等等。这就是原告等人所说的，记者在工作时没有时间吃饭、没有时间拿break休息吗？

还有一位列名原告的工商服务部前员工黄奕森，经常在中午时间与同事外出吃饭，并利用上班时间为同事代为登记集资购买乐透彩券，人證物證俱在。但他仍声称自己没时间休息、没时间吃中饭。然而，诸如此类的许多證据，同样无法让陪审员听到。

基於以上的理由，世界日报决定上诉到底，并确信美国司法制度终将还给本报清白。

法官判定南加州'世界日报'赔偿员工250万美元,报社不服欲上诉.



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.