18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 173 situated to members of the proposed collective action. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Christensen, et al. v. Carter ’ s Retail, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204050 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of retail employees, filed a class action alleging that Defendant’s exit inspection ("security checks") and rest break policies violated California wage & hour laws. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification of two classes pursuant to Rule 23. The Court denied the motion on the grounds that Plaintiffs failed to establish that the met the commonality and predominance requirements of Rule 23. As to the exit inspection class, the Court determined that Plaintiff failed to provide substantial evidence indicating that Defendant had a common policy or practice requiring off-the-clock security checks. Id . at *32. The Court reasoned that although Plaintiff offered declarations and testimony from putative class members purporting to establish a common practice of off-the- clock security checks, there was insufficient evidence provided that this practice was consistently applied during the class period in all of Defendant’s California stores. The Court further opined that Plaintiff himself provided testimony illustrating that security checks were not commonly done off-the-clock. The Court thus held that the record demonstrated that individualized inquiries would predominate such that class treatment of the security check class must be denied. Plaintiff also sought certification of a rest period class. However, the Court determined that the amount of discretion that managers had over how to apply the rest break policy made it insusceptible to common proof. The Court explained that under the policy, some store managers may have required permission while others did not, some employees may not have sought permission to take an offsite break, and some employees may have remained on site for a variety of different reasons. Id . at *36. Accordingly, the Court ruled that Defendant’s rest break policy did necessarily establish that class members suffered the common injury of being deprived of a rest break because it was not consistently applied to all employees. The Court held that the record indicated substantial variation in how managers and employees operated under the rest break policy, with some managers requiring employees remain on premises and on-call for work, and some managers routinely permitting rest breaks without seeking permission. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the evidence did not demonstrate a policy uniformly applied in a way that resulted in the denial of rest breaks free of employer control. For these reasons, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. Cole, et al. v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc ., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 9499 (9th Cir. April 1, 2021). Plaintiff, an employee, filed a class action alleging that Defendant failed to pay all wages due in violation of the FLSA and the California Labor Law. The District Court previously had granted Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. Following discovery, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment and to decertify the classes. The District Court granted the motions. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling. Plaintiff contended that the District Court erred in holding that Defendant satisfied its obligations under California law to provide meal and rest breaks to its truck drivers. Plaintiff also asserted that the District Court erred in decertifying the meal and rest break subclasses due to a failure to satisfy the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3). The District Court had found that truck drivers had their own discretion to plan trips and take meal and rest breaks, and under the applicable law, that was all Defendant was required to provide in order to fulfill its obligations. The Ninth Circuit agreed. It found that Plaintiff thereby failed to raise a material issue of fact regarding Defendant’s compliance with the mandated rest and meal breaks, such that summary judgment to Defendant was warranted. The Ninth Circuit also held that Plaintiff’s classes failed to meet the Rule 23(b) predominance requirement, as every driver would have individualized proof regarding whether or not they took breaks, when, and how often. The Ninth Circuit thus concluded that the case would not be manageable as a class action as the individual inquiries into each drivers’ break habits would necessarily need to be analyzed. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgement and motion to decertify the classes. Curphey, et al. v. F&S Management I LLC , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25829 (D. Ariz. Feb. 10, 2021). Plaintiff, an assistant manager, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant misclassified assistant managers as exempt employees and thereby failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, which the Court granted. Plaintiff asserted that assistant managers were not accurately designated as exempt employees and that Defendant improperly deducted pay for partial- day absences. In support of his motion, Plaintiff offered his own declaration and the declaration of four opt-in