18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

180 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition Jimenez, et al. v. Haxton Masonry, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54097 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of masonry employees, filed a class and collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay wages and overtime pay in violation of the FLSA and failed to pay travel expenses, including rental cars, gas, meals, and lodging, failed to pay all wages when due, and failed to provide accurate itemized statements in violation of the California Labor Code. Id . at *3. Plaintiffs sought conditional certification of a collective action, and class certification of their state law claims pursuant to Rule 23. Plaintiffs alleged that that they were not paid for travel time and truck loading time. Defendant contended that Plaintiffs’ proposed collective class members were not similarly-situated because they were subject to different company practices and procedures regarding their worksites commutes and had different work and commuting experiences. Id . at *12-13. Plaintiffs asserted that Defendant maintained a uniform policy of not paying regular field workers for travel time, and provided evidence through written discovery, depositions, workers’ declarations, and admissions in Defendant’s opposition. The Court ruled that Plaintiffs presented plausible evidence that the putative collective action members were similarly-situated for purposes of conditional certification. Additionally, the Court ruled that Defendant’s argument that Plaintiffs’ loading and unloading claims were de minimis did not undermine Plaintiffs’ assertion that they were not paid for loading time due to Defendant’s policies. Id . at *19. The Court therefore granted Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of a collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Plaintiffs also sought class certification under Rule 23 of a class consisting of all hourly workers residing in Arizona who incurred lodging expenses for work in California. The Court held that the class was sufficiently numerous at between 40 and 50 members. The Court also ruled that the common question of whether Defendant paid for expenses was present for all class members. The Court further reasoned that Plaintiffs’ claims were typical to those of the class members because their claims all arose out Defendant’s alleged practice of not paying for their lodging expenses. The Court also determined that Plaintiffs met the adequacy requirement. As to the Rule 23(b) predominance and superiority requirements, the Court held that resolving the claims regarding Defendant’s failure to reimburse necessary expenditures as a class would be far more efficient than resolving such claims in individual lawsuits. The Court therefore granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motions for class certification and for conditional certification of a collective action. Kim, et al. v. U.S. Bancorp, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156106 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 18, 2021). Plaintiff, a former Branch Assistant Manager (“BAM”), filed a collective action alleging that Defendant 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. In support of her motion, Plaintiff submitted her own declaration averring that all BAMs working for Defendant shared similar job duties and responsibilities throughout the country. Plaintiff contended that BAMs were scheduled to work only 40 hours each week, but Defendant required them to work beyond their scheduled hours to complete the requirements of the job. Plaintiff alleged that BAMS were required to perform opening and closing procedures and to respond to telephone calls and text messages from Branch Managers and tellers outside their scheduled hours, that they routinely worked through meal breaks, and that they were instructed by District and Branch Managers not to record hours in excess of 40 per week unless they obtain prior approval while knowing that the job responsibilities required excess work. Further, Plaintiff contended that District and Branch Managers were aware that BAMs were performing work during lunch and before and after their scheduled work hours, but when they went to record their overtime hours, they were directed to change their timesheets to delete overtime hours or spread them into the following week. In support of these allegations, Plaintiff also provided six other declarations from BAMs who worked for Defendant that advanced these same facts. In response, Defendant contended that it had policies in place prohibiting off-the-clock work and requiring employees to record all hours worked, and that Plaintiff failed to establish that all BAMs nationwide were similarly-situated. The Court ruled that at this stage of the proceeding, Plaintiff had sufficiently established that Defendant had a company-wide policy of discouraging the reporting of overtime, that the policies invariably compelled "off the clock" work, that Defendant knew BAMs worked more than 40 hours per week, and that requests for overtime pay were discouraged and sometimes rejected. Id . at *8. The Court concluded that Defendant’s argument went to the merits of Plaintiff’s claims and therefore should be considered after discovery was complete during the second stage of the collective action analysis. Accordingly, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Kudatsky, et al. v. Tyler Technologies , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35565 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2021). Plaintiff, a technology implementation consultant (“IC”), filed a class and collective action alleging that Defendant failed to