This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Jon D. Meer

By Erin Lee | Jul. 10, 2019

Jul. 10, 2019

Jon D. Meer

See more on Jon D. Meer

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Meer specializes in representing major brands in class actions, and he's currently defending Nike Inc. and Converse Inc. against appeals that seek to expand last year's Troester v. Starbucks Corp. holding.

In Troester, the state high court found employers must compensate employees for off-the-clock tasks, down to four-minute intervals. Troester v. Starbucks Corp., 5 Cal. 5th 1092 (Cal. 2018).

Meer's cases will answer the question of whether "off-the-clock" time needs be compensated to the second.

In both cases, employees claim the time spent undergoing bag checks prior to leaving the companies' premises should be compensable. The inspections take less than a minute on average, according to the complaints. Meer is arguing the four-minute de minimus standard should instead be reduced to two minutes, rather than seconds.

"We've said that human nature just doesn't let you manage people by the second," Meer said. "If you call someone to work to show up for a shift at 10 a.m., some will show up at 10 a.m. and 12 seconds, and we don't want to have to dock their pay for that."

Both cases were granted summary judgment in favor of the employers at the trial court. The cases are on appeal at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and Meer argued before the panel in June. Rodriguez v. Nike Retail Services Inc., 17-16866 (9th. Cir., filed Sept. 15, 2017). Chavez v. Converse Inc., 17-17070 (9th Cir., filed Oct. 16, 2017).

Meer received a favorable ruling from the 9th Circuit in another case earlier this year. The order affirmed an arbitration agreement an employee signs with a staffing agency also applies to a joint employer as a third-party beneficiary. In the case, a plaintiffs' class claimed wage and hour violations against Michael Kors Inc. and fought the company's motion to compel arbitration.

Meer argued the third-party beneficiary should be able to enforce an arbitration agreement with a staffing agency, even if the agreement doesn't explicitly mention the third party. Both the trial court and the appeals court agreed. Lucas v. Michael Kors, Inc., 18-73027 (9th Cir., April 22, 2019).

"So many employers today hire staffing company workers for short-term jobs, and they don't have those workers sign their own arbitration agreements because if you're onboarding somebody for a short-term assignment, you don't want to spend the whole time filling out paperwork," Meer said.

-- Erin Lee

#353417

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390

Send a letter to the editor:

Email: letters@dailyjournal.com