18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

174 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition Plaintiffs that supported his allegations. Defendants argued that Plaintiff could not demonstrate that all assistant managers at all its car wash locations were similarly-situated because each location was operated by a different operator. The Court disagreed with Defendant’s position. It held that Plaintiff established that all the car washes were owned by the same individual, were advertised on the same website, and had the same policies and procedures. Further, Plaintiff and the opt-in Plaintiffs all attested that they were regularly assigned to work at different locations and other assistant managers were also shared among locations. The Court found that this was sufficient to establish that assistant managers across all car wash locations were subject to the same policies and procedures. Defendants further contended that "Plaintiff has not presented any written policies with its motion." Id . at *10. However, the Court determined that Plaintiff’s allegations and evidence that he and other employees received partial-day compensation deductions but were denied overtime pay at multiple car wash locations were sufficient to illustrate such a common policy at the first stage of certification. Id . The Court therefore granted Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Darling, et al. v. Dignity Health, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135262 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2021). Plaintiff, an hourly non-exempt medical assistant, filed a class and collective action alleging that Defendants failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA and the California Labor Code. Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, and the Court granted the motion. Plaintiff sought conditional certification of a collective action consisting of “all non-exempt hourly paid patient care employees who made entries in the electronic medical record (EMR) system but who were not clocked-in to the timekeeping system and who were employed by Defendants in the United States at any time during the relevant time period.” Id . at *4. Plaintiff alleged that she regularly worked overtime hours and was not paid for the work. Plaintiff further asserted that documentation of patient care notes was an "integral, indispensable and legally necessary" task of the healthcare jobs in which they were employed, and Defendants required Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated employees to do their charting while at their place of employment. Id . Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants "systematically understaffed" their facilities such that Plaintiffs and similarly-situated employees were required to input patient care information in the system by working before the start of their shift, during their meal breaks, or after their scheduled shifts, without compensation. Id . at *5. Defendant argued that Plaintiff failed to establish that she was similarly-situated to all patient care employees. The Court disagreed. It determined that Plaintiff sufficiently alleged that Defendants required completion of contemporaneous charting and understaffed their clinics. Additionally, Plaintiff asserted that Defendants knew that employees were working without compensation because they were required to make chart entries while at Defendants’ facilities where they were observed doing so by Defendants’ agents and because the entries were time recorded. The Court ruled that Plaintiff made the requisite showing necessary to demonstrate that she was similarly-situated to the members of the proposed collective action. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Dimercurio, et al. v. Equilon Enterprises LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165187 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of oil refinery operators, filed a class action alleging that Defendant violated various provisions of the California Labor Code. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23, which the Court granted in part. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant’s mandatory standby system required operators to be on standby for 1.5 hours and, if requested, to arrive at work within two hours, without compensation. Id. at *11. Plaintiffs sought certification of a class consisting of all operators working at the refinery in Martinez, California, with a waiting time penalties subclass of operators who did not timely receive all their wages at the time of separation. The Court held that the class was sufficiently numerous. The Court also determined that the common question of whether Defendant had a practice of requiring operators to be on standby for 1.5 hours and be able to arrive at the refinery within two hours, and whether that practice constituted "reporting for work" under the California IWC Wage Order was capable of common resolution for the class. Id . at *16-17. The Court reasoned that Plaintiffs’ claims were typical because they arose out of Defendant’s uniform policy. The Court found that Plaintiffs met the adequacy requirement because they had no apparent conflicts of interest with other class members, were actively participating in the case, and Plaintiffs’ counsel was highly experienced in class action wage & hour litigation. As to the Rule 23(b) requirements, the Court ruled that common questions predominated as to the issue of whether operators were required to report for work and did report within the meaning of the IWC Wage Order. Id . at *23. The Court noted that the record indicated a uniform, widespread requirement of 1.5 hour standby periods for operators. Id . at *24. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiffs’