116 | 2023 Cal-Peculiarities ©2023 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com understood its duty to ensure that employee declarations did not result from the employer’s coercion or abuse. If the trial court found that the declarations had been obtained through coercion or abuse, it had broad discretion either to strike the declarations or to discount their evidentiary weight.366 Because the record demonstrated the trial court’s unawareness or misunderstanding of its duty to closely scrutinize the declarations with employer coercion or abuse in mind, its order denying the motions to strike the declarations had to be reversed, as did its ensuing order denying class certification.367 A dissenting justice opined that the majority erred in reaching the evidentiary issue and in treating the trial court’s purported evidentiary error as reversible without determining whether that evidentiary ruling had affected the certification decision.368 5.14.2 Judicial endorsement of California wage and hour class actions The California Supreme Court, in its 2004 Sav-On Drug Stores case, issued a decision favoring class certification of a wage and hour case involving whether the employer had properly classified certain managers as exempt.369 Sav-On emphasizes that if one reasonably might conclude from the record that common issues predominate over individualized ones, then a trial court’s certification order should not be disturbed on appeal.370 Sav-On states that decisions regarding predominance are for the trial court to determine, and the trial court’s decisions should not be lightly overturned.371 While Sav-On does not mandate certification in exempt/nonexempt classification cases, the opinion has a procertification tone, stating that class actions are “encouraged” in the wage and hour context.372 Furthermore, the Supreme Court suggested that if an employer categorically reclassified all the subject employees as nonexempt without changing their duties, that could fairly be taken as an admission that the position had been misclassified all along.373 The Supreme Court also suggested that class treatment could be supported by the employer’s failure to audit the performance of its exempt employees to see if particular employees truly were functioning in an exempt capacity.374 Sav-On identified several issues plaintiffs could establish through common proof: Whether the employer deliberately misclassified nonexempt employees as exempt. Whether the employer implicitly conceded the employees in question were nonexempt when it reclassified them all from exempt to nonexempt. Whether any given task within the limited universe of tasks that managers performed qualifies as exempt or nonexempt. Whether a manager following the employer’s reasonable expectation for performing the job would spend most working time on exempt duties.375 Sav-On concluded that a trial court could rationally conclude that those common issues predominated over individualized issues concerning how managers actually spent their time.376 Dismissing concerns that these cases could prove unmanageable, Sav-On noted that the trial court had broad discretion as to how to handle individualized issues once the class issues were resolved.377 Sav-On gave minimal guidance as to how to carry out those proceedings, but it encouraged trial courts to be “procedurally innovative” in fashioning procedures to resolve remaining individualized issues efficiently.378 The California Supreme Court affirmed these general class certification principles in Brinker, a 2012 case, by holding that a trial court considering certification need not decide issues that affect an element of the certification standard, if they are unnecessary to the ultimate certification decision.379
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4