Seyfarth Shaw LLP | www.seyfarth.com Litigating CA Wage & Hour Class and PAGA Actions (23rd Edition) 167 Quezada v. Schneider Logistics Transloading & Distribution846 is a prime example. In that case, a wage and hour class action brought by warehouse workers, a California federal district court found that an employer’s communications with putative class members were deceptive and coercive, struck all declarations obtained from them, and barred any further attempts by the defendant’s attorneys to contact the class members. The facts that led to this result were as follows: shortly after the plaintiffs filed their complaint, defense counsel began interviewing employees about the allegations. The meetings were held in a manager’s office during work hours and the employees were called to the office over a loudspeaker or ordered to attend by their supervisors. Some employees did not know why they were being ordered to the manager’s office. Before the start of each interview, defense counsel informed the employees that the meeting was “just an interview” and that the meetings were being conducted in connection with the company’s “internal investigation about the conditions at the warehouse.”847 Applying some of the Johnnie’s Poultry safeguards, the attorneys further explained that the interview and subsequently signing declarations were voluntary and that the employee could end the interview at any time; that if the employee decided to sign a declaration, he or she should make sure it was truthful and accurate; that the employer could not retaliate against or reward an employee based on the decision to participate or the information provided; that the employee was a potential class member in a lawsuit with claims pertaining to the subject of the meeting; that defense counsel represented the company, not the employees; and that the employees could consult with an attorney regarding the process.848 At the end of eachinterview, the employees were asked to sign a declaration. The attorneys did not explain, however, that the document was a sworn declaration that the employer could use to limit the employees’ potential recovery in the class action.849 Instead, the attorneys said that the document was a “consent form” regarding voluntary participation in the interview process.850 Some employees said they felt pressure to sign and only six out of the 120 interviewees declined to sign.851 The federal district court determined that, despite the attorneys’ disclosures to the employees at the outset of the interviews, the communications were deceptive because the employees were never told of the nature and purpose of the interviews, which was to gather evidence to use against class members in the lawsuit.852 In addition, the court held that the interviews were conducted in a coercive manner because the employees were essentially ordered to attend the meetings.853 Even though the employees were told the interviews were voluntary, 846 2013 WL 1296761 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2013). 847 Id. at *2. 848 Id. at *1-2. 849 Id. at *2. 850 Id. 851 Id. at *6. 852 Id. at *5. 853 Id. at *6.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4