18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

188 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition Vasquez, et al. v. Dan Keen Services, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100673 (D. Ariz. May 26, 2021). Plaintiff filed collective action alleging that Defendant paid its full-time non-exempt employees as W-2 employees for the first 40 hours worked in a week and as 1099 independent contractors for those hours exceeding 40 to avoid paying its workers overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, and the Court granted the motion. Plaintiff sought conditional certification of a collective action consisting of all non-exempt employees who worked over 40 hours in any given workweek as a past or present employee and/or independent contractor, who were classified as both employee and independent contractor and who did not receive overtime compensation. Id . at *2. In support of his motion, Plaintiff offered his own declaration and employee timesheets, which indicated that Defendant’s practice was to split its employees’ hours into two timesheets – one for the first 40 weekly hours performed and a second for hours over 40 – such that its employees did not receive overtime compensation. Id . at *6. The Court determined that Plaintiff made a plausible showing that he and employees working over 40 hours per workweek were the victims of a uniform policy that neglected to provide them overtime compensation. Id . at *6-7. The Court ruled that Plaintiff demonstrated that he was similarly-situated to the members of the proposed collective action. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Ward, et al. v. United Airlines, Inc. , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27482 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2021). Plaintiffs, a retired pilot and two flight attendants, filed a class action alleging that Defendant’s method of paying flight crew on "reserve,” or on-call, violated the California Labor Code. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23, which the Court granted. The collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) between the parties dictated that Defendant compensate flight crew on reserve status based on the higher of: (i) the time spent on flight-related activity; or (ii) a minimum guarantee. Plaintiffs contended that the compensation scheme was illegal, as it essentially borrowed from flight time to compensate for on-call reserve time in violation of the "no- borrowing" rule recognized in Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc . 9 Cal. 5th 762 (2020). Id . at *9. Defendant did not contest that the class was sufficiently numerous or that Plaintiffs established typicality. The Court determined that Plaintiffs established a common question that predominated by challenging the method by which Defendant paid reserve pilots and flight attendants. The Court observed that if the answer was that Defendant paid the higher line-pay value instead of a lower minimum-pay guarantee, Defendant was in violation of California law because it either did not pay for reserve time or because it borrowed time from line-value pay to cover reserve time. Id . at *10. Defendant argued that Plaintiffs failed to establish commonality and predominance because: (i) the different formulas for calculating the line-pay value for the flight crew had individualized variables; and (ii) not all class members were subject to California law. Id . at *11. The Court opined that Defendant’s arguments lacked merit because they would not change the outcome of whether or not Defendant’s payment method violated the law. The Court reasoned that for both pilots and flight attendants Defendant’s method of payment was to pay the greater of the minimum-pay guarantee or the line-pay value. Therefore, the common question for each was the same. The Court further ruled that Plaintiffs met the adequacy requirement because their interests were aligned with class members, as all of the claims asserted for each were identical. Further, Plaintiffs asserted that they would prosecute the case vigorously through counsel and were diligently participating in the case. Id . at *14. The Court also noted that class counsel was adequate in all relevant respects. As to the Rule 23 requirements, the Court determined that common issues predominated as Plaintiffs established a common question that predominated by challenging Defendant’s alleged violation of the no-borrowing rule. Id . at *16. Finally, the Court held that the a class action would be the superior method of adjudication given the predominance of common questions. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification under Rule 23. Wilson, et al. v. Pactiv LLC, Case No. 20-CV-1691 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2021). Plaintiff, a lift truck operator, filed a class action alleging that Defendant failed to round employee time records properly, failed to include non- discretionary bonuses when calculating overtime rates, failed to allow employees to leave the premises during rest breaks, and maintained unlawful meal and rest break policies in violation of the California Labor Code. Plaintiff sought certification of several classes pursuant to Rule 23. The Court denied the motion as to all proposed classes. The Court found that Plaintiff met the numerosity, typicality, and adequacy requirements for all proposed classes. However, the Court ruled that Plaintiff failed to establish commonality or predominance for any class. As to the rounding claims class, Plaintiff asserted that the claims of all members of the class turned on the common question of whether Defendant’s rounding policies and practices, which allegedly did not