18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 181 pay overtime compensation, waiting time penalties, and provide itemized wage statements in violation of the FLSA and the California Labor Code (“CLC”). The Court previously had granted conditional certification of a collective action to a group of “all implementation coordinators, implementation consultants, or other positions with similar job titles and/or duties . . . who work or have worked for Tyler Technologies . . . since May 15, 2017, in the ERP divisions.” Id . at *2. Plaintiff thereafter sought class certification pursuant to Rule 23 as to the state law claims under the CLC. The Court granted in part Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. Plaintiff sought to certify a class consisting of “all persons who worked for Defendant as ERP Implementation Consultants, or other positions with similar job duties and/or job titles within the State of California at any time during the four years prior to the filing of the case.” Id . at *3. The Court found that the class met the commonality requirement as the question of liability under the CLC would be identical for all class members. The Court opined that the question of whether Plaintiff demonstrated a common method of proof would cover all ICs. However, the Court reasoned that the differences afforded to ICs based on seniority rendered class certification improper as to senior IC’s since their primary duties required greater autonomy, leadership, and discretion. Id . at *15. The Court also determined that despite variations in clients and supervision between ICs, the record demonstrated that Defendant maintained common policies, agendas, training materials, sample data sets, which would uniformly go to the merits of whether the administrative exemption applied to all ICs. The Court ruled that Plaintiff was typical of the class he sought to represent, and would fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The Court also found that class treatment would be the superior method of adjudication. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to certify the class, with the exclusion of senior ICs. Lawson v. Grubhub, Inc., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 28320 (9th Cir. Sept. 20, 2021) . Plaintiff, a delivery driver for Defendant’s mobile app, filed a class action alleging that Defendant misclassified delivery drivers as independent contractors and thereby failed to pay them overtime compensation and minimum wages and for exempt reimbursements in violation of the California Labor Code. Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23. The District Court denied the motion on the grounds that since all members of Plaintiff’s putative class except for Plaintiff and one other signed agreements waiving their right to participate in a class action, Plaintiff was not typical of the class nor an adequate representative. The District Court also held that the action would not generate common answers to meet the commonality requirement. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling. The Ninth Circuit found that Plaintiff advanced no facts or contentions in addition to those already considered by the District Court that would change the analysis as to the appropriateness of class certification. For these reasons, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling denying Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. Lescinsky, et al. v. Clark County School District , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91441 (D. Nev. May 13, 2021). Plaintiff, a school district police officer, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant, the school district, failed to pay overtime compensation in a timely manner in violation of the FLSA Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, which the Court granted. Plaintiff asserted that Defendant paid overtime compensation in later pay periods than in which the overtime was worked. In support of his motion, Plaintiff offered his declaration in which he averred that other police officers working overtime at the school district did not receive overtime compensation in the proper pay period. Defendant argued that the allegations of the complaint and Plaintiff’s declaration were insufficient to show a common plan, policy, or practice that violated the FLSA. The Court determined that at this stage of the proceedings, Plaintiff had submitted a plausible allegation of a common policy or practice affecting potential members of the collective action. Id . at *8. The Court held that Plaintiff’s assertions of shared experiences by Plaintiff and potential members of the collective action were sufficient to show that they were similarly-situated. Accordingly, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Makaneole, et al. v. Solarworld Industries America, Inc., Case No. 14-CV-1528 (D. Ore. Feb. 12, 2021). Plaintiff brought a putative class action asserting violations of Oregon’s wage & hour laws. The Magistrate Judge previously had recommended that the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. Defendant SunPower, the successor organization to Defendant Solarworld, filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s findings under Rule 72. The Court rejected the objections, adopted the findings of the Magistrate Judge, and granted Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff maintained that Solarworld engaged in a practice of programming an electronic timekeeping system to deduct minutes from his hours worked prior to reporting them to payroll for