![]() ![]() Eight current and former Stix employees who had signed the settlement agreements joined the proposed class action as plaintiff's (the Chindarah plaintiffs). Shortly after the settlement agreements were signed, the original plaintiff's filed a second amended complaint including allegations that the settlement agreements violated numerous provisions of the Labor Code.creating a triable issue of fact as to whether or not were owed any additional wages." Finding the releases valid as a matter of law, the trial court granted Stix's motion for summary judgment and denied the motion by the Chindarah plaintiffs. ![]() The trial court found because Stix "produced evidence showing a good faith dispute with regard to classification of the employees," it had "produced evidence. The trial court found the Labor Code did not prohibit the release of a claim for unpaid wages where there is a bona fide dispute over whether any wages were owed. ![]() Stix moved for summary judgment of the complaint, claiming the releases barred recovery by the Chindarah plaintiffs.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |