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.

Employment Law
Wage and Hour
Unlawful and Unfair Business Practices

Ian McCray, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Marriott Hotel Services Inc., dba San Jose Marriott, SJMEC Inc. (San Jose Marriott), and Does 1 through 100

Published: Jul. 31, 2020 | Result Date: Mar. 2, 2020 | Filing Date: Feb. 5, 2016 |

Case number: 16CV291271 Summary Judgment –  Defense

Judge

Brian C. Walsh

Court

Santa Clara County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Ian A. Kass
(Pagano & Kass PC)

James L. Pagano
(Pagano & Kass PC)


Defendant

William J. Dritsas
(Seyfarth Shaw LLP)

Michael W. Kopp
(Seyfarth Shaw LLP)


Facts

Plaintiff Ian McCray filed a putative class action suit against Defendant Marriot Hotel Services Inc., for alleged violations of the City of San Jose Minimum Wage Ordinance after Plaintiff was hired by Defendant as a busser in 2012 and as a server in the Acadia restaurant in 2013, at an hourly rate of $9. As a server, Plaintiff's hourly rate was below the rate established by the Ordinance, however Plaintiff's work contract, or collective bargaining agreement contained a waiver of the Ordinance that explained certain requirements of the Ordinance could be waived in a bona fide collective bargaining agreement, as long as the waiver explicitly, clearly and unambiguously detailed the terms.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended Defendant paid hourly wages at a lower amount than required by the Minimum Wage Ordinance in the City of San Jose. Plaintiff contended the waiver did not apply to its CBA and federal law pre-empted such waiver.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied the contentions and contended the Ordinance could be waived through a clear and unambiguous expressed waiver in a bona fide CBA, which was included in Plaintiff's CBA and work contract.

Result

The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.


#134533

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

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