Northern District Court certifies under 23(b)(2) a class of shift workers alleging meal period violations at a Shell refinery

United States District Court Judge Claudia Wilken (Northern District of California) granted a motion for class certification in a suit alleging failure to comply with California's meal period requirements and pay an additional hour of pay for each instance of a violation.  Gardner v. Shell Oil Co., 2011 WL 1522377 (N.D.Cal. Apr 21, 2011).  The particularly interesting aspect of this case is the Court's decision to permit certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2):

"Claims for money relief may be certified as part of a Rule 23(b)(2) class, but the rule ‘does not extend to cases in which the appropriate final relief relates exclusively or predominantly to money damages.’ "  Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., 623 F.3d 743, 753 (9th Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Dukes, 603 F.3d at 615 n. 38).

Citing Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 151 F.3d 402, 412–16 (5th Cir.1998), Defendants contend that monetary relief in this case predominates because Plaintiffs seek damages for alleged unpaid wages and waiting-time penalties. However, the Ninth Circuit has expressly rejected the Allison approach to determining whether monetary relief in a given case disqualifies the class from certification under Rule 23(b)(2). In Wang, the Ninth Circuit explained, “In Dukes, we rejected as ‘deficient’ ... the Allison ‘incidental damages standard’ that permits certification of claims for monetary relief under Rule 23(b)(2) only when they are ‘incidental to requested injunctive or declaratory relief,’ because it is unduly restrictive.” 623 F.3d at 753–54. In this circuit, Rule 23(b)(2) is interpreted to require “only that claims for monetary relief not predominate over claims for injunctive relief” and certification is acceptable when the claims are on “equal footing.” Id. at 754.

Plaintiffs in the present case, like those in Wang, have a substantial claim for injunctive relief because they seek to end long-standing employment policies. Id. The claims for injunctive and monetary relief are closely related because back wages are sought for those who were deprived of lawful meal periods due to the policies Plaintiffs seek to enjoin. As a result of this close relationship, the request for monetary relief does not introduce “new and significant legal and factual issues,” nor raise particular due process or case management concerns. Id. Furthermore, courts have held that back wages are a form of relief that may be permitted in a Rule 23(b)(2) action. Dukes, 603 F.3d at 618–19 (holding that back pay in a Title VII case is fully consistent with certification of a Rule 23(b)(2) class action and noting that “every circuit to have addressed the issue has acknowledged that Rule 23(b)(2) does allow for some claims for monetary relief.”). In Dukes, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that back pay in the Title VII context generally involves relatively uncomplicated factual determinations and few individualized issues, and is an integral component of Title VII's “make whole” remedial scheme. Id. at 619. Nor are waiting-time penalties so significant or complex that they render Plaintiffs' monetary claim predominant over their request for injunctive relief. Accordingly, class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is warranted.

Slip op., at 6.  The balance of the opinion discusses predominance, and the Court concluded that common issues predominate and certified a Rule 23(b)(3) class as well.

The slip opinion on Westlaw does not identify the counsel involved in this uncommon attempt at 23(b)(2) certification in the wage & hour context, and I don't have time to track that down.  Thus, I don't know who to applaud.  If you do, given them a pat on the back.

In Mora, et al., v. Big Lots Stores, Court affirms denial of certification in manager misclassification case

I've comment previously that misclassification cases (especially in the retail and restaurant sectors) appear to be an increasingly difficult sell.  See post regarding Arenas v. El Torito Restaurants, Inc., 183 Cal. App. 4th 723 (2010).  Since then, I haven't seen anything to change my opinion that the tide has shifted from the Sav-on high water mark.  Yesterday, in Mora, et al. v. Big Lots Stores (April 18, 2011), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Seven) affirmed a trial court order denying certification of a class of Big Lots store managers alleged to have been misclassified as exempt from overtime pay and other labor code obligations.

The Court summarized the two ends of the legal spectrum defining the legal criteria applied to certification:

As the Supreme Court held in Sav-On, supra, 34 Cal.4th at page 326, the central issue in a class certification motion is whether the questions that will arise in the action are common or individual, not the plaintiffs' likelihood of success on the merits of their claims. (Accord, Ghazaryan v. Diva Limousine, Ltd. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 1524, 1531 ["trial court must evaluate whether the theory of recovery advanced by the plaintiff is likely to prove amenable to class treatment"].) The putative class representatives contend the trial court disregarded this standard, improperly focusing on the potential conflicting issues of fact that may arise on an individual basis rather than the common questions presented by their theory of recovery. To the contrary, the court employed the correct analysis and concluded the theory of recovery advanced—operational standardization imposed by Big Lots—was not supported by substantial evidence and thus not amenable to class treatment. No legal error was committed: "[A] class action will not be permitted if each member is required to 'litigate substantial and numerous factually unique questions' before a recovery may be allowed. . . . '[I]f a class action "will splinter into individual trials," common questions do not predominate and litigation of the action in the class format is inappropriate.'" (Arenas v. El Torito Restaurants, Inc. (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 723, 732 [affirming order denying certification on misclassification allegations where trial court found tasks performed by restaurant managers and time devoted to each task varied widely from restaurant to restaurant].)

Slip op., at 12.  The Court noted that the outcome was much like Arenas and Dunbar v. Albertson’s, Inc., 141 Cal. App. 4th 1422 (2006).

The outcome was driven by the standard of review.  The Court emphasized on several occasions that it couldn't second guess the trial court's decision to credit Big Lots' evidence over the plaintiffs' evidence:

In essentially rejecting the putative class representatives' evidentiary submission, the court observed that for more than half of the declarants the percentage of time estimated to have been spent on non-managerial, non-exempt duties was different from the estimates given in deposition testimony or statements to third party prospective employers.

Slip op., at 14, n. 10.  The trial court also credited the very individualized manager declarations submitted by Big Lots over the declarations from the plaintiffs.  The Court of Appeal found that that trial court did not abuse its discretion because substantial evidence supported the trial court's conclusion.  This is the anti-Sav-on.

Seymore v. Metson Marine opinion amended after rehearing

The Court of Appeal (First Appellate District, Division Three), issued its initial opinon in Seymore v. Metson Marine, Inc. on February 28, 2011).  Today, the Court issued an ameded opinion.  Seymore v. Metson Marine, Inc. (April 15, 2011).  I haven't had a chance to compare the opinions, so I'm not sure whether the opinion changed in any substantive way, or whether the Court simply addressed additional points raised during rehearing.  The opinion is four pages longer; however, the Court's reversal of the trial court remains in place.

District Court holds defendant to four corners of complaint when granting motion to remand

United States District Court Judge William Alsup (Northern District of California) granted a motion by plaintiff Pineda to remand a class action back to the California Superior Court from whence it came.  Pineda v. Bank of America, N.A., 2011 WL 1134467 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2011).  "Wait, isn't that case name very similar to a recent decision from the California Supreme Court regarding statutes of limitation in Labor Code section 203 cases?"  So right you are.  That's why this isn't a garden-variety remand order.  In this case, the defendant argued that it analyzed the complaint back in 2007 and concluded that the amount in controversy should have been calculated on the basis of a one-year statute of limitation.  But when the California Supreme Court held otherwise, Bank of America claimed that it learned for the first time that the case was removable.  Judge Alsup rejected that argument, observing that the parties agreed that the complaint alleged a four-year statute of limitation, and under that four-year statute, the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million.  The time to remove expired back in 2007, when the defendant was in possession of a complaint that, within its four corners, alleged an amount in controvery high enough to invoke CAFA jursidiction.

And, as I noted when reporting on Pineda previously, this matter is handled by Gregory Karasik at Spiro Moss.

Rest break and wage statement claims denied certification; Court appears to confuse PAGA requirements with other civil claims

United States District Court Judge Susan Illston (Northern District of California) denied certification in a suit by security guards alleging, among other things, failure to provide adequate rest breaks and failure to provide adequate wage statements.  Temple v. Guardsmark LLC, 2011 WL 723611 (N.D.Cal. Feb 22, 2011).  The rest break analysis was not particularly controversial.  The Order suggests that the defendant had a facially lawful policy and a large number of declarants supporting its practices.  The Court also agreed with defendant's observation that "even if plaintiffs have isolated one general question of whether the narrow California-specific policy displaced the general, national always-on-duty [policy], that question does not have a common answer."  Slip op., at 6.

The problematic portion of the Opinion concerns the wage statement claim.  There is no mention anywhere that the wage statement claim is purely derivative of a PAGA claim.  But the Court seems to impose an administrative exhaustion claim on Labor Code section 226:

California Labor Code Section 226(a) requires wage statements to show “all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee.” California law also requires that employees be paid double their regular rate of pay for every hour worked over twelve hours in a single day. Cal. Labor Code § 510. Finally, California requires that an “aggrieved employee or representative ... give written notice by certified mail to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and the employer of the specific provisions of this code alleged to have been violated, including the facts and theories to support the alleged violation,” before bringing a civil action based on violation of Section 226(a) of the Labor Code.  Cal. Labor Code §§ 2699.3, 2699.5.

Slip op., at 7.  It is settled law in California that PAGA did not displace any civil actions that could have been brought prior to its passage.  And there is no reason to conclude that PAGA requires LWDA exhaustion for anything other than PAGA claims.  It is unclear from the Order why this issue is discussed in this way.  It may be that the plaintiff attempted to circumvent a statute of limitations issue by claiming that a PAGA claim for other violations gave sufficient notice of the wage statement claim to permit relation back to the filing of an earlier complaint.  Whatever the case, the Order is dangerously unclear and incorrectly suggests an exhaustion requirement under 226 that does not exist.

Oral argument scheduled in Sullivan et al. v. Oracle Corporation et al.

On Wednesday, April 6, 2011, the California Supreme Court will hear argument in the matter of Sullivan, et al. v. Oracle Corporation, et al.  On February 17, 2009, the matter was certfied to the California Supreme Court by the Ninth Circuit.  Justice Roger Boren, from the Second Appellate District, Division Two, was assigne as justice pro tempore.  The questions certified to the California Supreme Court are:

First, does the California Labor Code apply to overtime work performed in California for a California-based employer by out-of-state plaintiffs in the circumstances of this case, such that overtime pay is required for work in excess of eight hours per day or in excess of forty hours per week?

Second, does § 17200 apply to the overtime work described in question one?

Third, does § 17200 apply to overtime work performed outside California for a California-based employer by out-of-state plaintiffs in the circumstances of this case if the employer failed to comply with the overtime provisions of the FLSA?

As a side note, the argument calendar also shows that Brinker is not on the April agenda.  Do I hear May anyone?  And by "May," you all know I mean May 2012, right?

Seymore v. Metson Marine, Inc. offers guidance on 7th day overtime, on call work

Plaintiffs worked consecutive 14-day “hitches” on Metson's ships, providing emergency clean up of oil spills and other hazardous chemical spills off the California coast.  This arrangement gave rise to questions about how Metson calculated pay for the seventh consecutive workday in a week and compensation for employees when on call.  In Seymore v. Metson Marine, Inc. (February 28, 2011), the Court of Appeal (First Appellate District, Division Three) reversed an order granting summary judgment in favor of Metson.

On the seventh day of overtime issue, Metson set the start time of the workweek so that employees only worked one "workweek" of seven consecutive days in the 14-day hitch.  On an issue of first impression, the Court rejected that manipulation:

Metson's attempt to evade the requirements of sections 500 and 510 is no different from the method struck down in the Wal-Mart case. Under the plain language of section 510, plaintiffs are entitled to premium pay “on the seventh day of work in any one workweek” and according to section 500, a workweek is defined to mean “any seven consecutive days, starting with the same calendar day each week.” The clear intent of this statute is to provide premium pay for employees who are required to work a seventh consecutive day in a “fixed and regularly” occurring workweek. Metson's attempt to circumvent this requirement cannot be condoned. (Huntington Memorial Hospital v. Superior Court (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 893, 910 [“The bottom line is this: An employer may not engage in a subterfuge or artifice designed to evade the overtime laws”].)

Slip op., at 5.  The Court found a DLSE memorandum on the issue to be in potential conflict with the statutory language and disregarded it.

Turning to whether Metson's control was sufficient to establish an obligation to pay for on-call time, the Court reviewed the evidence de novo, finding one fact in particular to be the key determinant, the obligation to sleep on Metson's premises:

Metson cites a number of cases in which courts have concluded that on-call employees able to engage in such personal activities and subject to even shorter response time requirements were not entitled to compensation. (See Gomez, supra, 173 Cal.App.4th 508 [30-minute telephone response time]; Dinges v. Sacred Heart St. Mary’s Hosps. (7th Cir. 1999) 164 F.3d 1056 [7-minute response time]; Bright v. Houston Northwest Medical Center Survivor, Inc. (5th Cir. 1991) 934 F.2d 671 [20-minute response time].) However, there is one critical difference between each of those cases and the present situation —in none of those cases was the employee required to sleep at the employer's premises. In Bright, the court observed that the situation there was “wholly different” from cases in which employees were required to serve their on-call time at the employer's premises because “Bright did not have to remain on or about his employer's place of business, or some location designated by his employer, but was free to be at his home or at any place or places he chose, without advising his employer, subject only to the restrictions that he be reachable by beeper, not be intoxicated, and be able to arrive at the hospital in 'approximately' twenty minutes.” (934 F.2d at p. 676.)

Slip op., at 10.  (As an aside, I find it amusing that two cases I handled, one on the prevailing side and one on the losing side, factored into the Court's discussion of this on-call issue.  Glad I didn't completely screw it up for the plaintiffs here.)  In any event, after an extended discussion of how California parallels but does not exactly follow FLSA precedent surrounding this issue, the Court then spent a moment discussing the fact that, in California, an employer may agree with an employee to designate eight sleeping hours as uncompensated time when an employee works a 24-hour shift.  The Court concluded by suggesting that Metson's arguments about the need for revised exceptions to current wage orders (or a new wage order) were worthy of consideration but did not provide a basis for the Court to disregard existing law.

United Parcel Service Wage And Hour Cases holds that a defendant cannot recover fees after prevailing on Labor Code section 226.7 claims

In Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc. (July 27, 2010), the Court of Appeal (Third Appellate District) held that a prevailing defendant could recover fees when it prevailed against a plaintiff asserting claims arising under Labor Code section 226.7 (meal and rest periods).  The Supreme Court then granted review.  The answering brief is currently due in that matter on March 21, 2011.   Today, the inscrutable Second Appellate District (Division Eight) held, in United Parcel Service Wage And Hour Cases (February 24, 2011), that fees were not available to a prevailing defendant in such actions.  In its analysis, the Court said:

Nothing in the legislative history suggests the Legislature meant the reciprocal fee recovery provisions of Labor Code section 218.5 to apply in an action for violation of the section 226.7 mandate that employers provide meal and rest breaks for certain nonexempt employees. The statutory remedy of section 226.7, providing compensation for missed breaks, was first enacted in 2000 in response to poor employer compliance with the meal and rest break requirements. (Murphy, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 1105-1106; Stats. 2000, ch. 876, § 7, p. 6509.) Before 2000, the only remedy available to an aggrieved employee was injunctive relief to prevent future abuse. (Murphy, at p. 1105.)

The 2000 amendment providing a pay remedy bears sufficient hallmarks of a penalty designed to shape employer behavior, and is sufficiently distinct from the customary types of bargained-for wages recognized under the law, that we cannot conclude the Legislature intended a claim under Labor Code section 226.7 to be interpreted as a claim for “nonpayment of wages” within the meaning of section 218.5. The section 226.7 pay remedy for missed meal and rest breaks was enacted 14 years after the Legislature enacted the reciprocal fee recovery provisions of section 218.5. It is therefore not reasonable to assume that when the Legislature enacted section 218.5 in 1986 to provide for recovery of prevailing party fees in claims for nonpayment of wages and benefits, it intended that provision to permit a prevailing employer-defendant to recover fees from an employee raising a claim for denial of breaks -- a claim which at that time only supported injunctive relief.

Construing the entire statutory scheme with a view toward protecting employees, as we must, we find that a claim for remedial compensation under Labor Code section 226.7 does not trigger the reciprocal fee recovery provisions of section 218.5. Since none of the claims on which UPS prevailed permit the recovery of attorney fees, the award of statutory fees to UPS was in error.

Slip op., at 14.

Considering the current state of Kirby, it seems like this decision will be citable law for about 90 days, give or take a week here or there.  If a Petition for Review wasn't granted, we'd certainly have a good idea about how a part of Kirby will be decided.

UPS v. Superior Court holds that Labor Code section 226.7 allows for 2 premium payments per workday

Today the Second Appellate District, Division Eight, giveth and taketh away.  In the first of two opinions issued by that Court today, the Court considered, in UPS v. Superior Court (February 16, 2011), whether Labor Code section 226.7 "authorizes one premium payment per work day regardless of the number or type of break periods that were not provided, or two premium payments per work day – one for failure to provide a meal period and another for failure to provide a rest period."  Slip op., at 2.  The Court concluded that section 226.7 allows up to two premium payments per work day.  In reaching that holding, the Court discussed with approval the statutory analysis and review of legislative history undertaken by the one federal court to exmaine the issue.  See, Marlo v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (C.D. Cal. May 5, 2009, CV 03-04336 DDP).

I must apologize for the reduced post frequency to start out this year.  Between a long overdue vacation, a bit of a lull in appellate decisions of note, and an impending move, I've been a bit short on blogging time.  My life is currently compressing into stacks of moving boxes and won't rehydrate until late March.  Thank you for your patience and for reading.

Update on 2011-06-02 22:57 by The Complex Litigator

The same result was reached after rehearing, in an opinion published on June 2, 2011.

Wait for Brinker continues

The California Supreme Court released its oral argument calendar for March 8th and 9th.  Still no sign of Brinker.  But it was a great excuse to use the Brinker 2009/2010/2011 news alert icon.