Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

A registered nurse who worked for the Indian Health Service during the COVID-19 pandemic claimed that she and similarly situated nurses were required by supervisors to work overtime without compensation. After resigning, she filed a class action lawsuit in the United States Court of Federal Claims, alleging, among other things, that the government violated the federal overtime statute by failing to pay for overtime that was allegedly induced by supervisors. Specifically, she argued that the statutory requirement for overtime to be “officially ordered or approved” should cover such induced overtime, even in the absence of written authorization.The United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed all counts of her complaint for failure to state a claim. With respect to the overtime claim (Count II), the court found that she did not allege that she or any potential class members had written authorization for their overtime, as required by the relevant Office of Personnel Management (OPM) regulation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, reviewed the validity of the OPM’s regulation that requires overtime orders or approvals to be in writing, in light of the statutory language and recent Supreme Court precedent on agency rulemaking authority. The court held that the statute delegates to OPM the authority to prescribe necessary regulations for administering the overtime pay statute, and that this includes the discretion to require written authorization as part of the “officially ordered or approved” process. The court concluded that the writing requirement is a valid exercise of OPM’s rulemaking authority and does not contradict the statute. The Federal Circuit therefore affirmed the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of the overtime claim and remanded the remaining claims to the original panel for further consideration. View "Lesko v. United States" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, who worked as a truck driver for the defendants for approximately nine months in 2018, brought claims alleging that the defendants failed to provide required meal and rest breaks, failed to reimburse necessary work-related expenses, and violated California’s unfair competition law. The plaintiff also filed a representative claim for civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), all arising from his employment as a driver.The Superior Court of Sutter County denied the plaintiff’s motion for class certification on the meal break, rest break, expense reimbursement, and unfair competition claims. In particular, the court found that the plaintiff failed to present substantial evidence of a common policy of discouraging breaks or of a community of interest among the proposed class members. The court relied on declarations from other drivers indicating they were not discouraged from taking breaks and noting variability in their experiences. The court also granted the defendants’ motion to strike the PAGA claim on manageability grounds, reasoning that adjudicating the claim would require individual testimony from 75 drivers and would be unmanageable.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, affirmed in part and reversed in part. It affirmed the denial of class certification for the rest break and expense reimbursement claims, finding insufficient evidence of commonality. However, it reversed the denial of class certification for the meal break and derivative unfair competition claims, holding that the trial court failed to apply the burden-shifting framework required by Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC when time records show missed or unrecorded meal breaks. Additionally, the appellate court reversed the order striking the PAGA claim, holding that trial courts lack inherent authority to strike PAGA claims solely based on manageability concerns, as clarified in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. The case was remanded for further proceedings, including consideration of whether the PAGA claim is preempted by federal law. View "Dieves v. Butte Sand Trucking Co." on Justia Law

A former hourly employee brought a class action lawsuit against his former employer, a large wood products company, alleging various wage and hour violations under California law. The proposed classes included both employees who had signed arbitration agreements and those who had not. While some nonexempt employees had signed arbitration agreements requiring individual arbitration and waiving class actions, the named plaintiffs had not. The employer did not initially assert arbitration as a defense and, when ordered by the court to produce copies of signed arbitration agreements for putative class members, failed to do so for several years.During the course of discovery in the Superior Court of Shasta County, the employer repeatedly resisted requests to identify or produce arbitration agreements for employees who had signed them, leading to multiple discovery sanctions. The employer participated in extensive discovery and mediation involving employees who had signed arbitration agreements, without distinguishing them from other putative class members. Only after class certification did the employer finally produce thousands of signed arbitration agreements and immediately moved to compel arbitration for those employees. Plaintiffs opposed, arguing the employer had waived its right to arbitrate by years of litigation conduct inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate, and sought evidentiary and issue sanctions for delayed production.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. Applying the California Supreme Court’s standard from Quach v. California Commerce Club, Inc., the appellate court held that the employer waived its right to compel arbitration by clear and convincing evidence. The employer’s prolonged failure to produce arbitration agreements and its conduct throughout litigation was inconsistent with an intention to enforce arbitration. The order denying the motion to compel arbitration was affirmed, and the appeal from the order granting evidentiary and issue sanctions was dismissed as nonappealable. View "Sierra Pacific Industries Wage and Hour Cases" on Justia Law

A company that provides temporary labor to various industries offers daily work opportunities to individuals at its labor halls. Workers can choose whether to accept job assignments, and once they do, they are responsible for arriving at the jobsite on time. The company offers several transportation options—including vans, carpools, and public transit—with a nominal fee deducted from paychecks for those who use company-arranged transportation. Workers can also bring their own tools or use company-provided equipment, with deductions only made for unreturned items.A group of workers filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Florida Minimum Wage Act. They claimed that transportation deductions reduced their pay below the minimum wage and that the company failed to pay for travel time, time spent collecting tools, and waiting time. The plaintiffs also raised a claim under the Florida Labor Pool Act regarding excessive transportation charges. The district court granted summary judgment to the company on the FLSA and minimum wage claims, denied the plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion, and declined to certify the subclass related to excessive transportation charges.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the transportation deductions were lawful because the transportation was optional and for the benefit of employees, not the employer. The court further held that time spent traveling, collecting tools, and waiting was not integral and indispensable to the workers’ principal activities and was thus noncompensable under the FLSA. Finally, the court affirmed the district court’s denial of class certification for the excessive-transportation-charge subclass, finding that individual inquiries would predominate. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Villarino v. Pacesetter Personnel Service, Inc." on Justia Law

Several former employees brought a class action lawsuit against their previous employer, a fast-food chain, challenging three company policies: excessive wage deductions for the Oregon Workers’ Benefit Fund (WBF), failure to pay for interrupted meal breaks longer than 20 minutes, and deductions for non-slip shoes required for work. The WBF overdeductions occurred when the employer failed to adjust employee contribution rates as the state rate decreased, causing employees to pay more than their share. The company also required employees to purchase specific non-slip shoes, from which it received vendor rebates, and allowed the cost to be deducted from wages.In the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, the plaintiffs prevailed on the WBF claims, with the court finding at summary judgment that the WBF overdeductions were willful, and that shoe deductions were for the plaintiffs’ benefit, leaving for trial whether the shoes were authorized in writing. The jury awarded substantial penalty wages for the WBF overdeductions, but the district court later reduced the jury’s award relating to shoe deductions, holding that written authorization was a defense. The court also denied class certification for the unpaid break claims, finding individual inquiry necessary, and refused to exclude class members who did not receive mailed notice or to reduce prejudgment interest for alleged plaintiff delay.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part. The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on willfulness regarding the WBF overdeductions and on whether the shoe deductions were for the employees’ benefit, requiring both issues be retried by a jury. The appellate court also clarified that written authorization was not a defense to minimum wage and overtime violations relating to shoe deductions. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment on the unpaid break claims and on notice and prejudgment interest issues. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "GESSELE V. JACK IN THE BOX INC." on Justia Law

Several individuals, representing a class, challenged a health insurance company’s refusal to cover gender-affirming care for transgender individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The company, acting as a third-party administrator for employer-sponsored, self-funded health plans, denied coverage for such treatments based on explicit plan exclusions requested by the employer sponsors. Some plaintiffs also alleged that they were denied coverage for treatments that would have been covered for other diagnoses, such as precocious puberty, but were denied solely because of the concurrent diagnosis of gender dysphoria.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington certified the class and granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The district court rejected the company’s arguments that it was not subject to Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act because its third-party administrator activities were not federally funded, that it was merely following employer instructions under ERISA, and that it was shielded by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The district court also found that the exclusions constituted sex-based discrimination under Section 1557.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court that the company is subject to Section 1557, that ERISA does not require administrators to enforce unlawful plan terms, and that RFRA does not provide a defense in this context. However, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court’s analysis of sex-based discrimination was undermined by the Supreme Court’s intervening decision in United States v. Skrmetti, which clarified the application of sex discrimination standards to exclusions for gender dysphoria treatment. The Ninth Circuit vacated the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to consider whether, under Skrmetti, the exclusions at issue may still constitute unlawful discrimination, particularly in cases involving pretext or proxy discrimination or where plaintiffs had other qualifying diagnoses. View "PRITCHARD V. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF ILLINOIS" on Justia Law

Several employees of the City and County of San Francisco who joined the city’s retirement system at age 40 or older and later retired due to disability challenged the method used to calculate their disability retirement benefits. The city’s retirement system uses two formulas: Formula 1, which provides a higher benefit if certain thresholds are met, and Formula 2, which imputes service years until age 60 but caps the benefit at a percentage of final compensation. Plaintiffs argued that Formula 2 discriminates against employees who enter the system at age 40 or above, in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).Initially, the San Francisco City and County Superior Court sustained the city’s demurrer, finding the plaintiffs had not timely filed an administrative charge. The California Court of Appeal reversed that decision, allowing the case to proceed. After class certification and cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court found triable issues and held a bench trial. At trial, plaintiffs presented expert testimony based on hypothetical calculations, while the city’s expert criticized the lack of actual data analysis and highlighted factors such as breaks in service and purchased credits.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the trial court’s post-trial decision. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove intentional age discrimination or disparate impact under FEHA. The court found substantial evidence that Formula 2 was motivated by pension status and credited years of service, not age. The plaintiffs’ evidence was insufficient because it relied on hypotheticals rather than actual data showing a disproportionate adverse effect on the protected group. The appellate court also affirmed the denial of leave to amend the complaint, finding no reversible error. The judgment in favor of the city was affirmed. View "Carroll v. City & County of S.F." on Justia Law

During the COVID-19 pandemic, an employee in Nevada worked for a large retailer that required workers to undergo COVID-19 testing before each shift, following state emergency orders and workplace safety recommendations. The company did not pay employees for the time spent on these pre-shift tests. The employee filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, alleging violations of Nevada’s wage-hour statutes and the state constitution, including failure to pay for all hours worked, minimum wage, overtime, and timely payment upon termination.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied the employer’s motion to dismiss, which had argued that the time spent on COVID-19 testing was not compensable “work” under the federal Portal-to-Portal Act (PPA). The district court held that Nevada law had not incorporated the PPA, and thus the pre-shift screenings were compensable. The court then certified a question to the Supreme Court of Nevada, asking whether Nevada law incorporates the PPA’s exceptions to compensable work.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the certified question and determined that Nevada’s wage-hour statutes do not incorporate the PPA’s broad exceptions to compensable work. The court found that Nevada law provides only narrow, specific exceptions to work compensation, unlike the PPA’s general exclusions for preliminary and postliminary activities. The court concluded that the Nevada Legislature did not intend to adopt the PPA’s exceptions, as reflected in the statutory language and legislative history. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Nevada answered the certified question in the negative, holding that Nevada’s wage-hour laws do not incorporate the PPA’s exceptions to compensable work. View "AMAZON.COM SERVS., LLC VS. MALLOY" on Justia Law

A restaurant and bar in Pennsylvania employed bartenders and servers who participated in a tip pool, which was allegedly distributed in part to a salaried manager, contrary to federal and state wage laws. An employee who worked there from September 2021 to December 2022 filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA). The claims centered on the manager’s alleged receipt of tip-pool funds intended for bartenders. The plaintiff sought damages and styled the case as a hybrid action: an FLSA collective action under § 216(b) and a Rule 23(b)(3) class action for the state law claim.The parties stipulated to conditional certification of an FLSA collective, and notice was sent to potential members, ten of whom opted in. After discovery, the parties reached a settlement agreement, proposing a Rule 23(b)(3) class settlement that would release wage-and-hour claims, including unasserted FLSA claims, for all class members who did not opt out. The District Court held a hearing focused on whether class members who had not opted into the FLSA collective could be required to release FLSA claims through the class settlement. The District Court denied preliminary approval, reasoning that § 216(b) prohibited such releases, and denied reconsideration, certifying the legal question for interlocutory appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the certified question de novo. It held that § 216(b) of the FLSA establishes only the mechanism for litigating FLSA claims, not the conditions for waiving them, and does not prohibit the release of unasserted FLSA claims in a Rule 23(b)(3) opt-out class settlement. The Court vacated the District Court’s order and remanded for a full fairness inquiry under Rule 23. View "Lundeen v. 10 West Ferry Street Operations LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was employed by a staffing company and assigned to work at a warehousing and logistics firm, performing duties as a materials handler and forklift operator. He filed a class action and a separate representative action alleging various wage and hour violations, including claims for unpaid minimum wages, waiting time penalties, and civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). The two cases were consolidated. The plaintiff and his direct employer had entered into an arbitration agreement, which referenced the American Arbitration Association (AAA) rules but did not explicitly state that the arbitrator would decide issues of arbitrability.The defendants moved in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County to compel arbitration of the plaintiff’s individual claims, dismiss class allegations, and stay judicial proceedings. They argued that the arbitration agreement was governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and that the AAA rules incorporated into the agreement delegated arbitrability issues to the arbitrator. The plaintiff opposed, asserting exemption from the FAA as a transportation worker and arguing that certain claims, including those under PAGA and for unpaid wages, were not arbitrable under California law. The trial court found the FAA did not apply, applied California law, and held that the agreement did not clearly and unmistakably delegate arbitrability to the arbitrator. The court compelled arbitration of some claims but allowed others, including minimum wage and PAGA claims, to proceed in court.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, affirmed the trial court’s order. The court held that, in the context of a mandatory employment arbitration agreement, mere incorporation of AAA rules without explicit language in the agreement is not clear and unmistakable evidence of intent to delegate arbitrability to the arbitrator. The court also held that claims for waiting time penalties based on minimum wage violations and all PAGA claims were not arbitrable under California law when the FAA does not apply. View "Villalobos v. Maersk, Inc." on Justia Law