“I have extensive experience in wage and hour class action litigation…”

I began my law career with the Law Office of Joseph Antonelli and was made a partner at the Law Office of Joseph Antonelli from July 2007 until December 31, 2020, when I started Janelle Carney – Attorney at Law, APC. For 22 years Joseph Antonelli and I successfully represented over 250,000 employees throughout the State of California in recovering over $500 Million on various wage and hour issues. Together Joe and I were successful in obtaining favorable published opinions for employees in the state of California on eight (8) major issues in each of the following cases:

1. Huntington Memorial Hospital v. Superior Court (“Mutuc”) (2005) 131 Cal.App. 4th 893, 906;
2. Tien v. Sup. Ct. (Tenet Healthcare) (2006) 139 Cal. App. 4th 528;
3. Jaimez v. Daiohs USA, Inc., (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1286;
4. Hoover v. American Income Life Insurance (2012) 206 Cal. App. 4th 1193;
5. Cochran v. Schwan’s, (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1137;
6. Falk v. Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, (2015) 237 Cal. App. 4th 1454;
7. Lafitte v. Robert Half International, Inc., et al. (2016), 1 Cal.5th 480;
8. Vasserman v. Henry Mayo Newhall (2017) 8 Cal. App 5th 236.

These cases were landmark decisions in the manner in which the regular rate must be calculated and what is considered a “subterfuge” to avoid the correct payment of regular rate and overtime rate (Huntington Hospital); the criteria required to certify pay stub claim, waiting time penalty claim, and meal and rest break claim among other matters (Jaimez); protecting the interests of putative class members in a wage and hour case who want their identity protected (Tien); the standard to prove that an employer has waived its right to arbitrate an employment claim against an employee who filed a class action (Hoover); the standard of when an employer is required to reimburse employees for cell phone usage and other business expenses in order to perform the employees’ duties, even if there was no direct costs to the employees (Cochran); the application of the tolling doctrine as applied to subsequent class actions being filed when the previous class action was disposed of without a ruling on certification (Falk); the Laffitte decision laid out the requirements for approval of a class action settlement including an in depth analysis on the attorneys’ fees request on a common fund. In Laffitte, the California Supreme Court affirmed the trial court and appellate court ruling and holds that the attorney fee award made on a common fund basis (percentage of the settlement) is the law in California; and that employees whose employment is governed by a collective bargaining agreement have not waived their right to bring statutory claims in court unless there is a clear and unmistakable waiver of their rights (Vasserman).