Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

A registered nurse initiated a collective action on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals, alleging defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 207 and 216(b), when they implemented a policy subjecting the pay of certain employees to an automatic meal break deduction whether or not they performed compensable work during breaks. Defendants made an offer of judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 in the amount of "$7,500.00 in alleged unpaid wages, plus attorneys' fees, costs and expenses as determined by the Court." The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Third Circuit reversed, first noting that the FLSA does not contain conditional class certification language. The court nonetheless applied the "relation back doctrine," which allows a district court to retain jurisdiction over a matter that would appear moot after expiration of a named plaintiff's individual claims, to prevent use of a Rule 68 offer as a "sword."

Petitioners Wayne Tomlinson, Alice Ballesteros and Gary Muckelroy appealed the dismissal of their claims against El Paso Corporation and the El Paso Pension Plan (collectively "El Paso") brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Plaintiffs' claims concern "wear-away" periods that occurred during El Paso's transition to a new pension plan. They contended that the wear-away periods violated the ADEA's prohibition on age discrimination and the anti-backloading and notice provisions of ERISA. The trial court found that El Paso's transition favored, rather than discriminated against, older employees; and the plan was frontloaded rather than backloaded. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit's review concluded that ERISA did not require notification of wear-away periods so long as employees were informed and forewarned of plan changes. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision dismissing Petitioners' claims.

Plaintiff filed a class action complaint in Nevada state court against his employer, alleging that the employer failed to pay him and other similarly situated employees overtime and minimum wages, listing causes of action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 216(b), under Nevada labor laws, and for breach of contract. At issue was whether a rejected offer of judgment for the full amount of a putative class representative's individual claim mooted a class action complaint where the offer preceded the filing of a motion for class certification. The court held that where a defendant made an unacceptable Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 offer of judgment that fully satisfied a named plaintiff's individual claim before the named plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, the offer did not moot the case so long as the named plaintiff could still file a timely motion for class certification. Once filed, a timely motion for class certification related back to the time of the filing of the complaint. The court further held that the district court abused its discretion in finding that plaintiff could no longer file a timely motion of class certification; that it erred in refusing to allow plaintiff to abandon his FLSA claims; and that it erred in holding that Nev. Rev. Stat. 608.100 abrogated plaintiff's breach of contract claims. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.

After multiple appeals to the court and extensive trial and other proceedings, plaintiffs' Title VII class action for employment discrimination against Lufkin Industries, Inc. (Lufkin) culminated in a favorable multimillion dollar judgment and injunctive relief. Both parties subsequently challenged the district court's attorneys' fee award and Lufkin's complaint that back pay damages were erroneously authorized in an earlier appeal. The court affirmed as to the back pay damages but vacated and remanded as to the attorneys' fees. In particular, given the unrebutted evidence in the record that it was necessary for plaintiffs to retain counsel from outside the Eastern District of Texas, the district court abused its discretion in failing to use the rate counsel charged in their home district as the starting point in the lodestar calculation.

Plaintiffs Cynthia Dudley-Barton, Richard Ice, Richard Mason, Deana Murphy and Susan Schmitz filed a class action lawsuit against Service Corporation International (SCI) based on allegedly unlawful employment practices and policies. Plaintiffs sought to recover unpaid wages based on SCI's purported failure to compensate its employees for time spent outside of regular work hours but on company business. In making these assertions, Plaintiffs brought four claims for violation of Colorado wage and labor laws, and state claims for breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, conversion and misrepresentation. Shortly after Plaintiffs filed their complaint, SCI removed the case to federal court. Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand. The district court granted Plaintiffs' motion, concluding that SCI had not established that the amount in controversy exceeded the $5 million jurisdictional threshold required under federal law. SCI appealed the remand to state court to the Tenth Circuit. But before SCI filed its appeal, Plaintiffs moved to dismiss their state court petition against SCI without prejudice. The Tenth Circuit subsequently granted SCI's petition for leave to appeal. The Tenth Circuit dismissed this appeal as moot.

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against a hospital network and senior executives, claiming to represent more than 12,000 employees deprived of compensation for work performed during their meal break, for work performed before and after shifts, and for time spent attending training sessions, based on the Massachusetts Payment of Wages Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, 148; the Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wages Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151, 1A and 15--or breach of contract or implied contract; money had and received; quantum meruit/unjust enrichment; fraud; negligent misrepresentation; conversion; equitable and promissory estoppel. Defendants claimed that the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 185, precluded state law claims. The district court dismissed. The First Circuit vacated and remanded, stating that the district court. It is not clear that either named plaintiff is covered by a collective bargaining agreement.

The issues central to this case are whether donning doffing poultry processing workers’ personal protective equipment is "changing clothes" under 29 U.S.C. 204 and whether a turkey processing plant is a “food and beverage industry” under Colorado law. Plaintiffs/Appellants Clara Salazar and Juanita Ybarra brought suit on behalf of hourly production employees at Defendant/Appellee Butterball, LLC’s Colorado turkey processing plant. Plaintiffs claimed that Butterball’s failure to compensate them for the time spent changing in and out of their personal protective equipment violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Colorado Minimum Wage Order. The district court entered summary judgment in Butterball’s favor, holding that the donning and doffing time was excluded and that the Colorado Wage Order did not apply to Butterball. Upon consideration of the submitted briefs and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decisions. The Court found that donning and doffing time is not "hours worked" as defined by FLSA. Furthermore, Butterball is a reseller, and the Colorado regulation applied only to employers "that sell food directly to the consuming public." Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court’s decisions.

Respondents, current or former employees of petitioner Wal-Mart, sought judgment against the company for injunctive and declaratory relief, punitive damages, and backpay, on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of some 1.5 million female employees because of Wal-Mart's alleged discrimination against women in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-1 et seq. At issue was whether the certification of the plaintiff class was consistent with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2). The Court held that certification of the plaintiff class was not consistent with Rule 23(a) where proof of commonality necessarily overlapped with respondents' merits contention that Wal-mart engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination and without some glue holding together the alleged reasons for the employment decisions, it would be impossible to say that examination of all the class members' claims would produce a common answer to the crucial discrimination question. The Court concluded that in a company Wal-Mart's size and geographical scope, it was unlikely that all managers would exercise their discretion in a common way without some common direction and respondents' attempt to show such direction by means of statistical and anecdotal evidence fell well short. The Court also held that respondents' backpay claims were improperly certified under Rule 23(b)(2) where claims for monetary relief could not be certified under the rule. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed.

Employees filed a proposed class action in state court, alleging violations of the minimum wage law. The employer removed to federal court. The district court found that the employer failed to show that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, as required for jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. 1453(c)(1). The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded. After the employer explained its calculations showing that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million, in order to hold that there was no jurisdiction, the district court had to find that it was legally impossible for plaintiffs to recover that much. The employer's calculations regarding the accrual of the statutory penalty are a reasonable interpretation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law statutory language.

Two-thousand unlicensed junior accountants brought a wage-and-hour class action against their employer, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP ("PwC"), alleging, among other things, that PwC failed to pay them mandatory overtime under California law. At issue was whether unlicensed accountants in California were categorically ineligible, as a matter of law, to fall under the professional exemption and the administrative exemption from mandatory overtime. The court held that neither exemption was categorically inapplicable to unlicensed accountants as a matter of law and PwC established material fact questions on whether the accountants fell under either exemption. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's partial grant of summary judgment in favor of accountants and held that the exemption defenses must be resolved at trial.