## Facts

- Guita Bahramipour worked for Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. as a securities broker/financial consultant.
- She alleged Citigroup misclassified securities brokers as exempt and failed to pay overtime required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
- She also alleged violations of California wage-and-hour law and brought a claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.
- The UCL claim alleged Citigroup engaged in “unlawful” business practices by violating the FLSA and sought restitution and related relief.
- Citigroup moved for partial summary judgment targeting only the UCL cause of action to the extent it was predicated on FLSA violations.
- Citigroup argued the FLSA’s enforcement and remedies (including the opt-in collective action mechanism) foreclosed using the UCL to obtain broader or different remedies and an opt-out class procedure.
- The motion did not ask the court to decide whether the FLSA was actually violated or whether class certification was proper.

## Issues

1. Whether the FLSA’s remedial scheme preempts or otherwise bars a California UCL claim seeking restitutionary relief based on alleged FLSA overtime violations.
2. Whether the UCL’s opt-out class mechanism and remedies create an impermissible conflict with the FLSA’s opt-in collective action procedure and enforcement structure.

## Decision

- The court denied Citigroup’s motion for partial summary judgment.
- The court held the FLSA does not preempt or bar a UCL claim predicated on FLSA violations.
- The UCL claim could proceed seeking restitution based on alleged unpaid overtime required by the FLSA.
- The court did not resolve the merits of the alleged FLSA violations or whether a class would ultimately be certified.

## Legal Principles

- The FLSA sets minimum federal wage-and-hour standards and does not, absent clear congressional intent, displace complementary state-law remedies that enforce the same substantive wage obligations.
- California’s UCL may “borrow” violations of other laws, including federal statutes, and treat them as “unlawful” practices remediable through restitution and injunctive relief.
- Differences between the FLSA’s opt-in collective action device and state-law opt-out representative procedures are generally procedural and do not alone establish conflict preemption where the state claim enforces the same underlying wage requirements.
- A state-law enforcement vehicle that does not alter the substantive federal standard, and that supports payment of wages owed, is not necessarily an obstacle to Congress’s objectives under the FLSA.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the plaintiff to pursue a California UCL claim seeking restitution based on alleged FLSA overtime violations, rejecting the argument that the FLSA’s remedial scheme categorically precludes parallel state-law UCL enforcement.


Bahramipour v. Citigroup Glob. Mkts., Inc., 11 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 498 (N.D. Cal. 2006)