18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 185 that all dancers were similarly-situated to Plaintiff. The Court found that Plaintiff sufficiently established that common material factual questions were presented as to the implementation and enforcement of Defendants’ practices and rules, and whether the rules and practices as enforcement would qualify the dancers as employees rather than independent contractors. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Senne, et al. v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137819 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2021). Plaintiff, a minor league baseball player, brought a class and collective action asserting wage & hour violation under the FLSA and the wage & hour laws of California, Arizona, and Florida. Plaintiff brought a motion asking the Court to certify a proposed Rule 23(b)(2) class consisting of any person who was or will in the future be signed to a Minor League Uniform Player Contract (“UPC”) and performed services pursuant to that contract in Florida, Arizona, or California. The Court previously had certified Rule 23(b)(3) classes. In opposition to certification, Defendants asserted standing challenges on two main grounds. First, Defendants objected that Plaintiff did not have standing to assert the claims of the putative class because although he was playing under a contract with MLB, he did not play for any of the Clubs that were Defendants in this case. Second, they contended that Plaintiff could not assert the claims of the Rule 23(b)(2) class members that arose under California and Arizona law because he had never worked as a minor league player in either state. The Court concluded that as to the first question, although Plaintiff had standing to assert his claims against MLB, he did not have standing to assert any claims against the Franchise Defendants. The Court opined, however, that the second question was governed by Rule 23 rather than Article III. However even if this question was addressed as a matter of standing, the Court determined that Plaintiff had standing to represent class members’ claims under the laws of Arizona and California, as well as Florida, where he performed services under the UPC. Nonetheless, the Court found that the scope of the Rule 23(b)(2) class must be narrowed in order to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23. The Court held that a narrowed class could be certified under Rule 23(b)(2) because, while Plaintiff did not meet the typicality requirement as to claims during the off-season in California, he did meet the typicality requirement where class membership was limited to those performing services in Florida and Arizona. The Court explained that to the extent that Plaintiffs’ proposed Rule 23(b)(2) class sought to include all activities performed under the UPC by minor leaguers in the three states (rather than limiting the proposed class to the activities that the Court previously found had satisfied the typicality requirement), the concerns it previously expressed as to individual inquiries and choice-of-law once again applied. Nothing suggested that the performance of a wide variety of off-season activities by minor leaguers who happen to be in one of these states for varying periods of time would not raise choice-of-law questions as to individual class members Therefore, the Court held that the proposed Rule 23(b)(2) class must be limited to services performed under the UPC during spring training, the championship season, and the instructional leagues in order to meet the typicality requirement. As such, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) in part and denied it in part. Shafer, et al. v. Red Tie, LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57346 (C.D. Cal. March 25, 2021). Plaintiff, an exotic dancer at an adult club, filed a collective action alleging that Defendants misclassified dancers as independent contractors and thereby failed to pay them minimum wages and overtime, and implemented illegal practices regarding the taking and sharing of tips in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, which the Court granted. Plaintiffs sought conditional certification of a collective action consisting of “dancers who have performed at the Defendants’ club Red Tie in the past three years." Id . at *6. In support of her motion, Plaintiff offered her own declaration that asserted that Defendants misclassified her as an independent contractor and failed to pay hourly wages, minimum wages, or overtime. Plaintiff averred that she was compensated only through tips, which she was required to share with managers, disk jockeys, and bouncers. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants exercised control over her work by setting her schedule, setting cover charges and VIP prices, and establishing rules regarding dances, music, and costumes and that they treated all other dancers in the same ways . Id . The Court found that Plaintiff made the requisite showing necessary to establish that she was similarly-situated to the proposed membership of the collective action for purposes of conditional certification. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion. Stickles, et al. v. Atria Senior Living, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 246086 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2021) . Plaintiff, a community sales director (“CSD”), filed a class action alleging that Defendant misclassified CSDs as exempt