Minor leaguers get go-ahead from US high court for pay lawsuit

A class action by minor leaguers against Major League Baseball for minimum wage and overtime pay violations can move forward in federal court in San Francisco after the U.S. Supreme Court denied a certiorari petition.

The case involving classes of plaintiffs from across the nation will return to U.S. Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero of the Northern District of California.

Attorneys for Major League Baseball -- represented by Paul D. Clement of Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Elise M. Bloom of Proskauer Rose LLP -- argued a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision to allow the case to move forward conflicts with other circuit decisions.

But the high court let stand the 9th Circuit ruling. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp. v. Senne, 19-1339 (S. Ct, filed June 1, 2020).

A divided 9th Circuit panel affirmed the California class and reversed Spero's denial of certification for plaintiffs suing over unpaid work at Arizona and Florida facilities.

Robert L. King, an attorney with Korein Tillery LLP who represents the plaintiffs, along with attorneys from Pearson, Simon & Warshaw LLP, said in a telephone interview 2020 has not been a good season for minor league baseball players because of COVID-19.

"Hopefully, 2021 will be better," he said, both on the field and in the lawsuit.

Bloom could not be reached for comment Monday on behalf of the league.

Minor league players sued MLB and its teams in 2014 alleging minimum wage and overtime pay violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act and state laws.

Players earn a salary during a regular season but are not compensated for overtime pay, which takes place throughout the season, given the schedule, or offseason work.

King said the class includes thousands of current and former minor league players. He said there has been no discovery in the case since 2016.

9th Circuit Judge Sandra S. Ikuta, an appointee of President George W. Bush, dissented from the panel decision, arguing the majority decision to apply the law of the jurisdiction where work took place is too simplistic.

"One may admire the simplicity of this rule -- but unfortunately, it is contrary to our framework for analyzing the intersection of class action and choice-of-law issues, overlooks the complexity of California's choice-of-law rules, and creates significant practical and logistical problems," she wrote.