18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

424 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition dismissing Plaintiffs’ putative class action because Plaintiffs’ complaint had sufficiently pled the class certification requirements to survive a motion to dismiss. Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the numerosity requirement was met because the complaint alleged that the class could contain 2,000 members at a minimum. The trial court and Appellate Division had determined that Plaintiffs failed to satisfy the predominance requirement because there were too many uncertainties regarding the number of claims and the harm suffered; thus, it was difficult to determine a common nucleus of operative facts. However, the Supreme Court concluded otherwise, as it found that Plaintiffs pled sufficient facts to withstand a motion to dismiss on the issue of predominance because the putative class was seeking statutory damages. In order to prove that Defendants violated the FACTA, Plaintiffs were required to demonstrate that Defendants willfully printed receipts containing credit or debit card expiration dates. Accepting as true Plaintiffs’ allegations that Defendants’ non- compliance was a consistent result of how their receipt-printing equipment was programmed, the significant questions of Defendants’ conduct and willfulness presented a common nucleus of operative facts. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that Plaintiffs had pled sufficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss on the question of predominance. Moreover, the Supreme Court also held that Plaintiffs had adequately pled superiority because they addressed considerations of fairness to the parties and judicial efficiency, i.e ., the fact that class members’ financial wherewithal or incentive to pursue a claim that might cost more than its worth, and the FACTA’s willfulness requirement that made it more. As such, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Appellate Division. Branch, et al. v. Cream-O-Land Dairy, 2021 N.J. LEXIS 3 (N.J. Jan. 13, 2021). Plaintiff brought a putative class action on behalf of himself and other similarly-situated truck drivers alleging overtime violations pursuant to the New Jersey Wage & Hour Law (“NJWHL”). Defendant moved for summary judgment asserting as a defense its good faith reliance on certain determinations by employees of the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development (“Department”) that Defendant was a "trucking industry employer." Id. at *3. Specifically, Defendant argued that it was exempt from that provision as a trucking industry employer under the NJWHL, and also asserted that it was entitled to invoke the absolute defense set forth in the NJWHL because it had relied in good faith on three separate matters in which the Department had investigated its operations and concluded that Defendant was a “trucking industry employer.” Id. The trial court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that the decisions that Defendant relied upon satisfied the standard for the good faith defense. The trial court, however, did not address whether Defendant was a “trucking industry employer” under the NJWHL. On Plaintiff’s appeal, the New Jersey Appellate Division reversed because it found that none of the determinations on which Defendant relied met the requirements of the good faith defense under the plain language of the NJWHL. Defendant then appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Division and remanded the matter to the trial court. The Supreme Court agreed with the Appellate Division that Defendant had not met the requirements of the good faith defense under the NJWHL. As such, the Supreme Court held that the trial court improperly granted summary judgment in Defendant’s favor and remanded the matter for consideration of Defendant’s argument that it was a trucking-industry employer pursuant to the NJWHL and for a determination of whether Defendant complied with the applicable overtime standards in compensating its employees. In so ruling, the Supreme Court recognized that the plain language of the NJWHL left an employer like Defendant in a difficult position. Having prevailed in three disputes that ended at an early stage, Defendant was afforded no procedural route to secure a ruling by the Commissioner or Director with respect to those determinations. For this reason, the Supreme Court suggested that the Department develop a procedure whereby an employer can seek an opinion letter or other ruling from the Commissioner or Director regarding a claimed exemption from the NJWHL’s overtime requirements. East Bay Drywall, LLC, et al. v. New Jersey Department Of Labor & Workforce Development, 2021 N.J. Super. LEXIS 47 (N.J. App. Div. April 20, 2021). Plaintiff filed an action challenging the application of the "ABC Test," which provided that drywall installers who provided services for Plaintiff had been improperly classified as independent contractors rather than as Plaintiff’s employees. Id . at *2. With respect to the misclassified installers, the state auditor calculated that Plaintiff owed the New Jersey Department of Labor & Workforce Development for unpaid contributions to the fund. Following a hearing before an administrative law judge ("ALJ"), the ALJ concluded three of the individual installers had been misclassified as independent contractors. However, the ALJ found that other installers who had formed and operated corporations or limited liability companies ("LLCs") during the audit period could not, as a matter of law, be deemed employees. On further