Amanda C. Sommerfeld

Amanda C. Sommerfeld

Amanda C. Sommerfeld’s practice focuses on the defense of corporate clients in individual and class action litigation in state and federal courts.

She has over 25 years of experience successfully defending corporate clients in employment-related matters, and she has repeatedly been recognized as a standout among her peers.

Sommerfeld has a unique and proven track record defending class, Fair Labor Standards Act and PAGA representative actions involving a panoply of alleged wage and hour violations for the transportation industry, including major class action representations on behalf of airlines, railroads and trucking operations. Wilson v. Skywest Airlines, Inc., 19-cv-01491-VC (N.D. Cal. Jul. 12, 2021).

“There are a lot of long-term employees who move up the ranks at SkyWest, so they understand their employees. And in the Wilson case, in particular, many of the employees themselves told the court that they did not want the changes to their work schedules that the plaintiffs were seeking, Sommerfeld said. “Not every wage and hour rule that benefits workers on an assembly line equally benefits flight crew who work in the air. And everything that happens in the air is regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In addition, flight crews have collective bargaining representatives who actively and consistently engage with management to protect the needs of the workers. Here, that process really works. And in the flight attendant case, in particular, the plaintiffs in the class action did not, in our view and in the views of many of the workers themselves, represent the interests of the current flight attendants.”

“I think that made an impact on the court,” she added.

She also won a case for the fast-food giant McDonald’s in an action she’s quite familiar with — suitable seating.

Of the Luckett v. McDonald’s case, she said, “having successfully tried the first ‘suitable seating’ case in 2012, it was a great experience to obtain what was, I think, the first successful summary judgment ruling since the California Supreme Court weighed in on what the applicable standard is for these cases.” Roosevelt Luckett v McDonald’s Restaurants of California, Inc., et al., 20SSTCV05066 L.A. Super., (filed Feb. 07, 2020).

Most of these cases involve employees who occasionally or even consistently work at a cash register, ringing up merchandise. Just because there may be enough physical space to put a stool or a chair in front of a cash register, doesn’t mean that ‘the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of a seat,’” she said. “That’s the key component under the law as to whether or not a seat must be provided. It really takes an expert to explain the mechanics of how the body moves in and around the area where the employee rings up transactions at the cash register because sometimes putting a stool or a seat in this space will actually hinder the employee’s ability to move around safely–which obviously is very important.”

--Douglas Saunders