18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

186 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition employees and thereby failed to pay them overtime compensation in violation of the California Labor Code. Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23, and the Court granted the motion in part. Plaintiff sought to certify a class of "all persons employed by Defendants in the position of Community Sales Director in California and classified as exempt from December 18, 2016 through December 31, 2019, who did not execute an arbitration agreement with Defendants" Id . at *4-5. The Court found that the proposed class had over 100 individuals and thereby Plaintiff met the numerosity requirement. The Court further determined that the common issue of whether CSDs were misclassified as exempt employees were central to all class members’ claims. As to typicality, the Court noted that Defendant did not argue that Plaintiff's claims were unique from those of the class or that Defendant would have defenses unique to some class members. Id . at *9. The Court concluded that Plaintiff’s claims were typical to those of other potential class members because they were all denied certain pay and benefits due to the alleged misclassification. The Court also ruled that Plaintiff was an adequate class representative as to other CSDs who did not sign arbitration agreements. The Court also opined that there was no reason to believe Plaintiff's counsel had any conflicts of interest with the putative class members or that Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel would not vigorously prosecute this action on behalf of the certified class. Id . at *11-12. Relative to the Rule 23(b) requirements, Plaintiff argued that there was sufficient uniformity in work duties and experiences among CSDs to diminish the need for individualized inquiries and proof of the actual work that CSDs performed. Id . at *12. The Court held that the classification issue was a common issue susceptible of common proof, as all CSDs had the same job description and duties. The Court reasoned that the classification issue was necessarily central to Plaintiff's claims, and adjudication of the classification issue would significantly advance resolution of this case as a whole. Id . at *25. The Court therefore held that common questions predominated and class-wide adjudication would enhance judicial economy, so that a class action was superior to individual actions. For these reasons, the Court granted the motion for class certification for determination of the issue of whether CSDs were properly classified as exempt outside salespersons. Trevion, et al. v. Golden State FC LLC, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107533 (E.D. Cal. June 8, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of fulfillment center workers, brought a consolidated wage & hour class action alleging multiple violations of the California Labor Code, including failure to pay wages for all hours worked, overtime, meal and rest period violations, and wage statement violations. Plaintiffs worked for Defendant at fulfillment centers throughout California. Plaintiffs sought class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of eleven classes including a class for claims for: (i) unpaid wages based upon control of employees through mandatory exit procedures, (ii) unpaid wages based upon controlled meal periods, (iii) meal period violations for controlled meal periods, (iv) rest period violations for controlled rest periods, (v) improper rounding of wages, (vi) invalid rest period waiver claims, and (vii) wage statement violations. At the outset the Court noted that many of the challenged policies overlapped within and among the various classes. Plaintiffs primarily contended that Defendant implemented uniform exit security procedures at all its facilities which required the putative class members to pass through metal detectors and undergo security procedures in order to exit the facilities at the end of their shifts, for their meal periods or to exit for any other reason. Plaintiffs contended that they were under Defendant’s "control" from the time of facility entrance until the time employees passed through the metal detectors and exited. As such, Plaintiffs maintained that this uniform policy resulted in a failure to pay Plaintiffs and the putative class members for all hours worked, including the time they were under Defendant’s control after clocking-out while they were subjected to Defendant’s exit security procedures. Defendant opposed class certification on the basis that Plaintiffs had not presented a manageable trial plan and also argued that Plaintiffs failed to account for Defendant’s individual defenses to their claims. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and certify five of the eleven proposed classes. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court not certify certain classes claiming unpaid wages, as well as meal and rest breaks, based upon Defendant’s control over Plaintiffs. In particular, the Magistrate Judge found that the workers’ claim that they were entitled to compensation for the time spent after swiping-in and before clocking-in because they could not exit the facility without completing Defendant’s mandatory exit screening process was not supported by the evidence or record. The Magistrate Judge concluded that based upon the evidence the employees could enter and exit the facilities without completing the exit security screening process if they only accessed the lockers, main break rooms, or other areas outside of the security checkpoints. The Magistrate Judge also recommended denial of class certification on the claims alleging improper rounding for their wages. However, the Magistrate Judge concluded that class-wide litigation would promote efficiency by