18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 233 the CLC. Defendant argued that the proposed California class members would fail to meet the commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23. Plaintiffs asserted the as to the California-based recruiters, they sufficiently pled commonality and typicality by alleging that Defendant’s "failure to pay overtime and provide meal and rest breaks in violation of California law is the result of [KSI’s] uniform policies and practices." Id. at *6. Plaintiff argued that when read as a whole, the complaint sufficiently alleged CLC violations. The Court held that reading the complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs and accepting the facts alleged as true, Plaintiffs met their burden to sufficiently allege that Defendant systematically denied West and the class members the breaks and overtime compensation they were due under the CLC. The Court further ruled that it would be premature to rule on the maintainability of Plaintiffs’ proposed California class because on the present record, it lacked the information necessary to conduct a rigorous analysis under Rule 23(a). Accordingly, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss the California Labor Code claims. Magadia, et al. v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., 999 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2021). Plaintiff brought a class action on behalf of herself and others similarly-situated alleging violations of California Labor Code (“CLC”), as well as the California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). The District Court at first certified classes corresponding to each of Plaintiff’s three claims. After summary judgment rulings and a bench trial, the District Court found that Plaintiff in fact suffered no meal break violation and decertified that class, but allowed the PAGA penalties on that claim based on violations incurred by other employees. Id . at 672. The District Court then ruled against Defendant on the three claims and awarded Plaintiff and the two remaining classes over $100 million in damages and penalties. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit vacated the District Court’s judgment and the award of damages on the § 226.7 claim under the CLC for meal break violations and remanded with instructions to further remand the claim to state court, and reversed the judgment and award of damages on § 226(a) claims under the CLC for wage-statement violations and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Defendant. First, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Plaintiff lacked Article III standing to bring the PAGA claim for meal break violations because she herself did not allege that she suffered any injury from the alleged violation. As to Plaintiff’s claims under § 226(a) of the CLC, the Ninth Circuit noted that Defendant’s failure to disclose statutorily required information on wage documents, if true, violated a "concrete interest." Id . at 679. The Ninth Circuit thus concluded that Plaintiff sufficiently alleged that Defendant’s failure to provide itemized wage statement in violation of § 226(a) presented a material risk of harm to his interest in the statutorily guaranteed information. The Ninth Circuit thus found that Plaintiff had standing to bring the § 226(a) claims. However, in looking to the merits of the claims, the Ninth Circuit opined that Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant failed to list the rate of “MyShare” overtime adjustments was not required under the statute. Id . at 681. The Ninth Circuit explained that the MyShare overtime adjustment was not typical overtime pay; instead, it was a non-discretionary, after-the-fact adjustment to compensation based on the overtime hours worked and the average of overtime rates over a quarter. Id . The Ninth Circuit thus determined that the MyShare adjustment was not a calculation of an "hourly rate in effect during the pay period." Id . The Ninth Circuit concluded that Defendant was not in violation of the Labor CLC. For these reasons, the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded that District Court’s judgment. Editor ’ s Note: The Ninth Circuit’s ruling upended one of the largest wage & hour judgments of the year. Maharaj, et al. v. Charter Communications, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33650 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2021). Plaintiff, a maintenance technician, filed a class action alleging various violations of the California Labor Code. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss or to stay the action, which the Court denied. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant failed to provide timely, off-duty 30-minute meal periods and 10-minute rest periods by often requiring employees to monitor or answer their work phones, respond to supervisors or customers, or clock-in and complete tasks during these breaks. Id . at *3. Plaintiff also asserted that Defendant discouraged employees from taking meal periods before the end of their fifth hour of work, as required by California law. Defendant argued that the claims should be stayed or dismissed because another action entitled Sonico v. Charter Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-CV-1842 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2019), was filed before Plaintiff’s action and defined a putative class that included Plaintiff’s punitive class. The Court held that this argument was moot because it recently granted Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in the Sonico action. Defendant also asserted that the first-to-file rule should apply to Plaintiff’s PAGA claim "because it is subsumed by and overlaps with" claims in three concurrent PAGA actions filed in state court. Id . at *6. The Court disagreed. It opined that Defendant had not cited, and the Court had not found, any binding authority contravening the notion that the first-to-file rule serves principles of