18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 183 various job classifications for Frontline Employees. Id . at *6. As to commonality and predominance for the grace period claim, Plaintiffs contended that all class members were subject to Defendant’s common policy under which it did not pay for all time from punch-in to punch-out and only paid for hours scheduled. The Court disagreed. It reasoned that Plaintiffs were confusing a grace period violation with a rounding violation. The Court explained that Defendant’s policy provided a voluntary grace period during which the employee was not working but were "allowed to clock-in up to five minutes early" and for which they only would be "paid from the start of their scheduled shift." Id . at. *5. The Court held that the fact of whether Frontline Employees were "in fact working" and/or were "under Defendant’s control during the grace period," would necessarily turn on individual inquiries for each class member. As to the meal and rest break claims, Plaintiffs asserted that Frontline Employees missed meal periods and rest breaks without compensation as required by law. The Court found that Plaintiffs demonstrated commonality and predominance for the meal period claim. In support of their claim, Plaintiffs submitted class members’ time records, as well as their expert’s analysis of those records, and 43 class member declarations stating across the board that regular, uninterrupted meal breaks were not provided. The Court opined that Plaintiffs submitted sufficient evidence through employee declarations about Defendant’s "actual business practices," to support a finding that common issues of law and fact would predominate over any individual issues. Id . at *21. The Court determined that declarations filed by both sides also showed a pattern and practice of rest break violations across the proposed class. Accordingly, the Court held that Plaintiffs established commonality for the rest break claims in that the class members all suffered the same injury. The Court also found that the claims met the predominance requirement. Finally, the Court reasoned that class treatment for the meal and rest break claims would be the superior method of adjudication given the small recoveries for each class member and the common proof required. For these reasons, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Monplaisir, et al. v. Integrated Tech Group, LLC , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40115 (N.D. Cal. March 3, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of cable and telecommunications equipment installers, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay for required off-the-clock work in violation of the California Labor Code and the FLSA. The Court previously had granted Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Thereafter, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of all installers who were signed arbitration agreements as part of their new hire training. The certified collective action was thus reduced from 380 potential members to 132 members. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for class certification of all California-based opt- out members pursuant to Rule 23, which the Court denied. The Court held that the proposed class lacked numerosity such that class treatment was not appropriate. The Court determined that of the original collective action members, only 16 would be part of a putative class for Rule 23 certification. As a result, the Court found that Plaintiffs failed to meet the numerosity requirement and denied the motion for class certification. Ornelas, et al. v. Tapestry, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148327 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2021). Plaintiff, an hourly retail store employee, filed a class action alleging that Defendant failed to pay for time spent undergoing security screening checks in violation of the California Labor Law. Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23. The Court granted the motion. Plaintiff contended that Defendant failed to compensate employees for required bag and coat checks that they had to undergo before leaving work, and that all employees were subject to the common security check policy. The Court found that the class was sufficiently numerous at over 180 employees. Further, the Court determined that all putative class members’ claims due to the security check policy could be resolved on a class-wide basis. The Court also noted that Defendant’s manager manual and operations manual both had policies and procedures outlining the security checks and mandated that they be applied to each employee. Thus, the Court concluded that the common question central to the validity of each of the class members’ claims would be whether or not they underwent a bag and coat check while off-the-clock. The Court also explained that Plaintiff’s claims were typical of the class since they arose out of Defendant’s uniform employee security check policies that applied to all class members throughout the class period. As to adequacy of representation, the Court opined that Plaintiff shared common interests with the proposed class and had averred that he was willing to take the necessary steps to prosecute the action. In addition, Plaintiff’s counsel submitted several declarations stating they were experienced class action litigators who were adequate and would continue to prosecute this action on behalf of the class. Id . at *12. As to the Rule 23(b) requirements, the Court observed that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominated over any questions affecting only individual members. Finally, the Court held that Plaintiff met the superiority requirement,