18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

284 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition was rare to strike class allegations from a complaint, and such motions are generally treated unfavorably in the pertinent case law. The Court reasoned that here, certification issues raised by Defendant were enmeshed in factual and legal issues, particularly the choice-of-law analysis required for possible class members located in multiple states. The Court concluded that because a choice-of-law analysis was premature, it could not yet rule out the possibility that there would be no material conflicts of laws or whether state-specific subclasses could be manageable if a nationwide class could not be certified. For these reasons, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to strike the class allegations. Vallejo, et al. v. Sterigenics U.S., LLC , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191072 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2021). Plaintiff, an hourly machine operator, filed a class action alleging that Defendant failed to pay for off-the-clock work, rounded employee time in a manner that was not neutral that advantaged Defendant, and failed to adequately inform employees of their right to take meal and rest periods in violation of the California Labor Code. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The Court granted the motion. Plaintiff contended that Defendant intentionally and willfully failed to pay overtime wages because it required him to answer phone calls from supervisors after his shifts, required that Plaintiff sign paperwork after clocking-out for his shift, interrupted meal periods with work tasks, and rounded hours that failed to compensate Plaintiff for all hours worked. The Court held that Plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead unpaid overtime violations, as he failed to include facts about his shift hours, his rate of pay, or an estimate of the amount of overtime he believed that he was due for each week he worked. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendant’s motion as to the overtime compensation claim. Plaintiff also asserted claims for meal and rest period violations. Defendant argued that Plaintiff failed to identify any specific instances in which Defendant allegedly failed to provide Plaintiff a meal or rest period, or failed to pay Plaintiff meal or rest period premiums. The Court agreed with Defendant that Plaintiff failed to establish a meal or rest break violation because Plaintiff’s complaint lacked any allegation of at least one meal or rest break where he worked through the break without compensation. Accordingly, the Court also granted Defendant’s motion as to Plaintiff’s meal and rest break claims. Plaintiff further asserted that Defendant regularly failed to pay minimum wages. The Court determined that Plaintiff’s claim for failure to pay minimum wages was completely derivative of Plaintiff’s claim for failure to provide meal and rest breaks and pay meal and rest break premiums. Therefore, because the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim for failure to provide meal and rest breaks, the Court also dismissed Plaintiff’s claim for failure to pay minimum wages. The Court therefore granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims, although it allowed leave to Plaintiff to submit an amended pleading. Zamora, et al. v. Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P. , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39982 (C.D. Cal. March 3, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of employees of Defendant’s fleet maintenance team, filed a class action alleging that eight causes of action, including: (i) violation of the California Business and Professions Code ("UCL"); (ii) failure to pay overtime compensation; (iii) failure to pay minimum wages; (iv) failure to provide required meal periods; (v) failure to provide required rest periods; (vi) failure to provide accurate itemized statements; (vii) failure to reimburse employees for required expenses; and (viii) failure to pay wages when due. Id . at *2-3. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the class allegations from Plaintiffs’ action on the basis that the claims alleged only pertained to a small number of employees at a single location. The Court agreed with Defendant and granted the motion to dismiss the class allegations. Plaintiffs asserted their claims were sufficiently alleged because each claim was supported with factual allegations regarding Plaintiffs’ personal experiences on the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s fleet maintenance team, and each claim was brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and the class. Id . at *7. The Court, however, explained that whether Plaintiffs adequately alleged claims on their own behalf was beside the point, as Plaintiffs failed to assert any factual support for the class allegations. Id . The Court opined that Plaintiffs merely alleged that their claims were also brought on behalf on behalf of every worker Defendant employed in California over the past four years, but did not provide any support for the allegations. Id . at *7-8. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to strike the class claims. (xxvii) Procedural Issues In FLSA Collective Actions Balderramo, et al. v. Go N.Y. Tours Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88931 (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of tour bus drivers, brought a putative collective and class action alleging wage & hour violations pursuant to the FLSA and the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”). Plaintiffs moved to conditionally certify a FLSA collective action as well as a class action under Rule 23(b)(3). Defendants moved for summary judgment and alternatively, requested the Court to stay the action pending resolution of a New York State Department of Labor ("NYSDOL")