A former employee of a major retail clothing store has taken legal action against his previous employer, alleging violations of labor laws that have broader implications for many current and former employees. Francisco Miranda, Jr. filed a complaint against Guess? Retail, Inc. in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County on June 25, 2024.
Miranda's case centers around a claim under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), which seeks civil penalties on behalf of himself and other affected employees. The crux of Miranda's allegations is that Guess failed to reimburse employees for expenses incurred while performing their job duties. Specifically, he claims that employees were required to purchase and wear Guess clothing during corporate visits and use their personal cell phones for work-related tasks without reimbursement.
According to court documents, Miranda worked as a stockroom employee at the Guess retail store in Santa Monica between 2016 and 2018. He testified that managers expected employees to wear Guess clothing on certain days and would send them home if they did not comply. Additionally, Miranda used his personal cell phone for work purposes but was never reimbursed for these expenses. Guess, however, contends that wearing Guess clothing was encouraged but not mandatory and that any required use of personal cell phones would be reimbursed upon submission of proper documentation.
The trial court initially dismissed Miranda's non-individual PAGA claim citing manageability issues and lack of standing based on recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings. However, this decision was reversed by the California Court of Appeal following further legal developments. The appellate court found that Miranda had standing to pursue the non-individual PAGA claim based on new precedents set by Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., which clarified that plaintiffs retain standing even when individual claims are sent to arbitration.
Miranda is seeking civil penalties from Guess for failing to reimburse necessary expenditures as mandated by California Labor Code section 2802(a). This statute requires employers to indemnify employees for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred in direct consequence of their duties or obedience to employer directions.
Representing Miranda are attorneys Matthew J. Matern, Mikael H. Stahle, and Debra J. Tauger from Matern Law Group. On the defense side are Andrew M. Paley, Elizabeth M. Levy, and Kiran Aftab Seldon from Seyfarth Shaw LLP. The case is being overseen by Judge Kenneth R. Freeman under Case ID B323439.