Jesse A. Cripps

Cripps handles a full range of labor and employment matters under both federal and state law, specializing in the defense of high-risk, complex and class action employment litigation.

One of his longest-running and more complicated cases ended in a win in April when a 2nd District Court of Appeal panel affirmed the victory Cripps first obtained in a Los Angeles trial court on claims that plaintiffs were improperly trying for two bites at a class action apple involving complaints over meal periods, rest breaks and wage issues at client Glenair Inc., a Glendale-based maker of high-end electrical connectors.

“We felt the other side was really overreaching, and the court of appeal saw it for what it was, an attempt at double recovery,” Cripps said.

The case involved a so-called joint employer situation, a familiar arrangement in which workers are controlled both by a staffing agency and by the agency’s client company, in this instance Glenair.

Or as Presiding Justice Elwood G. Lui of the court’s Division Two put it, “In a joint employer arrangement, can a class of workers bring a lawsuit against a staffing company, settle that lawsuit, and then bring identical claims against the company where they had been placed to work. We answer no.” Castillo v. Glenair Inc., 2018 DJDAR 3386 (Cal. App. 2nd Dist. April 18, 2018).

A novel aspect of the case was that the staffing agency class action was running in parallel with the class claims against Glenair. The first class action settled — before a different trial court — ahead of the case against Glenair; Cripps’ task was to extinguish the second case based on the settlement’s broad release of claims against the staffing company and its agents. The appellate panel concluded that Glenair was an agent of the staffing company for the purposes of the litigation.

The decision completely bars the named plaintiffs’ individual and class claims against Glenair. “The plaintiffs’ lawyers wanted to represent a class of Glenair employees — the numbers were quite large — but the outcome cut off their ability to litigate,” said Cripps, who argued the matter both at the trial court and on appeal.

The plaintiffs have petitioned the state Supreme Court for review. “We don’t think it is the kind of thing the high court will be interested in,” Cripps said. “We have a very happy client.”

At oral argument Cripps went second. “I had the benefit of sitting there watching how the panel reacted to the other side,” he said. “It was clear they were really concerned about the position the other side was taking, so I knew where to focus my energy when it was my turn.”

— John Roemer