Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs Michael Parnow, Shawn Lisenby, Bob Andrade, Gabriel Bautista, and Saiyaz Abdul filed a class action against Universal Protection Service, LP and Universal Services of America, Inc. (collectively, UPS). Plaintiffs worked as armed security guards at the Yolo County Superior Court, under the employ of UPS. As part of their job, they have to provide equipment, such as guns, handcuffs, and radios, and have to pay the costs to maintain their certification to work as armed guards, but they are not reimbursed for equipment or training costs. When they filed an administrative complaint, they were all fired except plaintiff Lisenby, and none were paid their wages. The trial court granted a stipulated stay, pending the outcome of a then-pending case in the California Supreme Court. After the Supreme Court issued its decision, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint as a “representative action” under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) and also petitioned to compel class-wide arbitration. The agreement listed a number of disputes that were covered, including “any state or local statutes and ordinances relating to wage and hour or wage payment matters.” It excluded employees covered by collective bargaining agreements, and disputes involving workers compensation and unemployment insurance. UPS answered with a general denial, coupled with various affirmative defenses, including that the class action claims were barred by the arbitration agreement. UPS also filed a cross-complaint seeking a declaration that: (1) the trial court, not the arbitrator, should decide whether class action relief was barred by the arbitration agreement; and (2) that the arbitration agreement barred class actions. After plaintiffs answered the cross-complaint, UPS moved to compel individual arbitration and stay the proceedings. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, in part arguing that under American Arbitration Association (AAA) Rules, whether class arbitrations were permitted was a matter for the arbitrator to decide. Plaintiffs obtained judicial notice of the AAA Rules. The trial court denied the motion to compel individual arbitration, and stayed the suit pending the arbitration. UPS petitioned for a writ of mandate, seeking to set aside the order compelling it to submit to arbitration. Upon review, the Court of Appeal concluded that the agreements’ incorporation by reference of the AAA Rules vested the arbitrator with the power to decide the disputed issue. The alternative writ was discharged, the stay (issued previously) was vacated, and the petition for mandate was denied. View "Universal Protection Service v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were laborers who worked on the construction and rehabilitation of two multi-family housing projects. Plaintiffs filed this wage and hour action and moved for certification of a proposed class including all laborers, tradesmen, and craftsmen who worked for Monfric, Inc., the general contractor, or its subcontractors and who were not paid prevailing wages during the construction and rehabilitation of the housing projects. The district court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, concluding that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate numerosity of the proposed class. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that Plaintiffs failed to establish that their proposed class was so numerous as to make joinder of its remaining members in a single action impracticable. View "Morrow v. Monfric" on Justia Law

Wal-Mart is the country’s largest private employer, operating approximately 3,400 stores and employing more than one million people. In 2001, named plaintiffs filed a putative class action (Dukes) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, on behalf of all former and current female Wal-Mart employees. In 2011 the Supreme Court reversed certification of the nationwide class of current Wal-Mart employees under Rule 23(b)(2), finding that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate questions of law or fact common to the class. The district court then held that all class members who possessed right-to-sue letters from the EEOC could file suit on or before October 28, 2011. Six unnamed Dukes class members filed suit, alleging individual and putative class claims under Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) on behalf of current and former female employees in Wal-Mart Region 43. . The district court dismissed the claims as time-barred. The Sixth Circuit reversed. The timely filing of a class-action complaint commences suit and tolls the statute of limitations for all members of the putative class who would have been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class action; the suit is not barred by the earlier litigation. View "Phipps v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, hired as unpaid interns on the Fox Searchlight-distributed film "Black Swan," claimed compensation as employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., and New York Labor Law. The district court granted plaintiff Glatt and Footman's motion for partial summary judgment, certified plaintiff Antalik's New York class, and conditionally certified Antalik's nationwide collective. The court agreed with defendants that the proper question is whether the intern or the employer is the primary beneficiary of the relationship, and the court proposed a list of non‐exhaustive factors to aid courts in answering that question. Because the district court limited its review to the six factors in DOL’s Intern Fact Sheet, the court remanded for the district court to permit the parties to submit additional evidence. Even if Antalik established that Fox had a policy of replacing paid employees with unpaid interns, it would not necessarily mean that every Fox intern was likely to prevail on her claim that she was an FLSA employee under the primary beneficiary test, the most important issue in each case. Assuming some questions may be answered with generalized proof, they are not more substantial than the questions requiring individualized proof. Because the most important question in this litigation cannot be answered with generalized proof, the court vacated the district court’s order certifying Antalik’s proposed class and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Finally, for substantially the same reasons as with respect to Antalik’s Rule 23 motion, the court vacated the district court’s order conditionally certifying Antalik’s proposed nationwide collective action and remanded for further proceedings. View "Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed from an order denying certification of a class of approximately 26,000 nonexempt California current and former employees of Chipotle regarding what plaintiffs allege, among other things, is Chipotle‘s policy to require employees to purchase slip-resistant shoes from a vendor, Shoes for Crews, in order to work at Chipotle‘s restaurants. The court concluded that the trial court‘s order denying plaintiffs‘ class certification motion and granting Chipotle‘s motion to deny class certification is a nonappealable order because the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Lab. Code, 2698 et seq., claims remain in the trial court and the "death knell" doctrine does not apply under these circumstances. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal. View "Munoz v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, and certified nursing assistants who worked for the Arkansas Department of Veterans Affairs (ADVA) as hourly employees. Plaintiffs brought this action alleging violations of the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act for failing to pay them for all overtime hours worked. Plaintiffs sought class certification. After a hearing, the circuit court granted class certification. ADVA appealed, arguing that the circuit court abused its discretion in certifying the class. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in its findings regarding the requirements of commonality, predominance, and superiority. View "Ark. Dep't of Veterans Affairs v. Okeke" on Justia Law

In this putative class action, plaintiffs are a class of black steel workers who allege endemic racial discrimination at a South Carolina plant owned by Nucor. At issue was whether the workers have presented a common question of employment discrimination through evidence of racism in the workplace. In light of the Supreme Court's opinion in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, the district court on remand refused to certify the class. The court held that the district court has for a second time erred in refusing to certify the workers’ class, where (1) statistics indicate that promotions at Nucor depended in part on whether an individual was black or white; (2) substantial anecdotal evidence suggests discrimination in specific promotions decisions in multiple plant departments; and (3) there is also significant evidence that those promotions decisions were made in the context of a racially hostile work environment. The court concluded that the district court fundamentally misapprehended the reach of Wal-mart and its application to the workers' promotions class. Accordingly, the court vacated in part and remanded for recertification of the class. View "Brown v. Nucor Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action complaint alleging that Defendants violated Hawaii law by charging customers of certain hotels service charges without fully disclosing to customers that the charges were not entirely being distributed to non-managerial service employees. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s wage law claims and granted summary judgment for Defendants on the unfair methods of competition (UMOC) claim. Defendants appealed, and Plaintiff cross-appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment as to the unpaid wages but vacated the circuit court’s order granting summary judgment for Defendants on the UMOC claim and remanded for further proceedings. Plaintiff then requested an award of attorneys’ fees and costs for the appeal and cross-appeal and an award of post judgment interest on the damages. The Supreme Court held (1) Plaintiff was entitled to attorneys’ fees for both the appeal and the cross-appeal, and Defendants were jointly and severally liable for the payment of Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs; and (2) post judgment interest was not appropriate under the circumstances of this case. View "Gurrobat v. HTH Corp." on Justia Law

Alleging illegal tip pooling Conners filed a collective action against her former employer (a restaurant) under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 216(b). The employer then implemented a new arbitration policy that requires all employment-related disputes between current employees and the employer to be resolved though individual arbitration. The policy purports to bind all current employees who did not opt out; each employee received an opt-out form. Citing public policy, the district court declared the policy unenforceable insofar as it could prevent current employees from joining this collective action. On interlocutory appeal, the Eighth Circuit vacated, holding that former employees like Conners lack standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to challenge the arbitration agreement, which applied only to current employees. View "Conners v. Gusano's Chicago Style Pizzeria" on Justia Law

Eva Mies sought class action certification in order to sue her former employer, Sephora U.S.A., Inc. (Sephora), on behalf of employees who, like her, worked as "Specialists" in Sephora’s California retail stores. Mies claims Sephora misclassified Specialists as exempt from certain provisions of California labor law and, as a result, failed to pay overtime wages and failed to compensate them for missed meal periods. However, after crediting evidence that all Specialists did not engage in the same tasks to the same extent, the trial court denied class certification, concluding individualized issues, not common ones, would predominate the determination of liability. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded the trial court used proper legal criteria in assessing class certification and substantial evidence supported the trial court’s findings. The Court also conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification. View "Mies v. Sephora U.S.A." on Justia Law