Michael Rubin

Rubin’s work focuses on helping low-wage workers enforce existing rights to basic workplace protections, frequently in the class action context.

Rubin has won victories against large companies such as Bank of America NA and CVS Pharmacy Inc. in recent years on the rights of employees to sit while working, winning $15 million on behalf of 23,000 Bank of America tellers. Garrett v. Bank of America, RG-13699027 (Alameda Super. Ct., filed May 26, 2011). He said he has spent much of his time in state and federal courts fighting the McDonald’s Corp. on behalf of employees both in franchised and corporate-owned restaurants. At the trial level, Rubin said he is fighting the restaurant chain on behalf of 30,000 employees in McDonald’s-owned restaurants for various wage and hour violations that he said are continuing and have resulted in a second trial after he won at trial last year. Sanchez v. McDonald’s, BC499888 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Jan. 24, 2013).

Rubin has taken a similar fight to the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals regarding franchised restaurants where McDonald’s says it does not have sway over policies but where Rubin said the chain should be treated as a joint employer. Salazar v. McDonald’s, 14-CV2096 (9th Cir., filed March 12, 2014).

“McDonald’s could fix these problems in a second, but it’s claiming that its franchisees are wholly independent and that it has no responsibility,” Rubin said, noting that the alleged violations included failure to pay overtime, failure to provide proper meal and rest breaks and requiring employers to pay the cost of maintaining their own uniforms.

Rubin also wrote friend-of-the-court briefs and split oral argument time in the landmark Dynamex case in front of the California Supreme Court which overhauled who is classified as an employee or an independent contractor in California. Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, DJDAR 3856 (April 30, 2018). Rubin said the decision, which implements an “ABC” test for determining employee status throughout the state would impact the “rights of probably tens of millions of Californians and make the protections of the labor code far more broadly available not only in the on-demand economy but throughout traditional industries.”

— Chase DiFeliciantonio