Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

Appellant, as counsel for a group of 64 retired city firefighters and their families, appealed the district court's approval of a class-action settlement agreement between the city and a certified class of active and retired firefighters, police officers, civilian employees, and their unions. The court held that, given the nature of the case and the potential conflict at issue, the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class or by ensuring fair and adequate representation for the entire class by means other than appointing separate counsel for each subclass. The district court's conclusion that the settlement agreement was a fair, reasonable, and adequate settlement for all of the class members was well within its discretion. Finally, the court rejected appellant's argument that the district court abused its discretion under Rule 23(d) by failing to hold a special hearing on the ability of class counsel to represent the subclass. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Professional Firefighters Assoc., et al. v. Zalewski" on Justia Law

Named plaintiffs sought to represent potential classes of hospital employees, some covered by collective bargaining agreements and others not, claiming that they were deprived of compensation for work performed during meal breaks, before and after shifts, and during training sessions. One case asserted only state law tort and regulatory claims; the other raised claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 206-207, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C.1059(a)(1), 1104(a)(1). The district court dismissed. The First Circuit affirmed in part. The state law claims were properly removed to federal court and were preempted because many were dependent on the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. The federal law claims, dismissed for failure to identify specific employers, were remanded to permit amendment. View "Cavallaro v. UMass Mem'l Health Care,Inc." on Justia Law

This case stemmed from the DLSE's investigation into whether Brinker was complying with its obligations to provide rest and meal breaks to its employees, maintain proper records, and pay premium wages in the event required breaks were not provided. The court considered on appeal issues of significance to class actions generally and to meal and rest break class actions in particular. The court concluded that the trial courts were not obligated as a matter of law to resolve threshold disputes over the elements of a plaintiff's claims, unless a particular determination was necessarily dispositive of the certification question. Because the parties have so requested, however, the court nevertheless addressed several threshold disputes. In regards to the nature of an employer's duty to provide meal periods, the court concluded that an employer's obligation was to relieve its employee of all duty, with the employee thereafter at liberty to use the meal period for whatever purpose he or she desired, but the employer need not ensure that no work was done. Further, in light of the substantial evidence submitted by plaintiffs of defendants' uniform policy, the court concluded that the trial court properly certified a rest break subclass. On the question of meal break subclass certification, the court remanded to the trial court for reconsideration. With respect to the third contested subclass, covering allegations that employees were required to work "off-the-clock," no evidence of common policies or means of proof was supplied, and the trial court therefore erred in certifying a subclass. View "Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Super. Ct. of San Diego Cty" on Justia Law

Assistant managers at Rite Aid stores in Maryland and Ohio joined a nationwide opt-in action in a Pennsylvania federal court, seeking back pay for misclassification of assistant managers as overtime-exempt (Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 216(b)). One of them (Fisher) then initiated an F.R.C.P. 23(b)(3) class action lawsuit in the District of Maryland, seeking damages for alleged misclassification under Maryland laws. Following dismissal without prejudice under the "first-filed" rule, Fisher refiled in Pennsylvania, asserting diversity jurisdiction. Another plaintiff initiated a class action in the District of Northern Ohio seeking damages for alleged misclassification under the Ohio Act, asserting diversity jurisdiction. The case was transferred to Pennsylvania based on the forum selection clause in the employment contract. The Pennsylvania district court dismissed, holding that state law is not preempted, but that Rule 23 opt-out class actions based on state laws paralleling the FLSA are incompatible with the opt-in procedure under the FLSA, which was designed to prevent litigation through representative action. The Third Circuit affirmed with respect to preemption, but reversed with respect to inherent incompatibility. View "Knepper v. Rite Aid Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Allstate on behalf of a putative class, alleging a nationwide pattern or practice of sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, and the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. 206(d). She alleged gender-based earning disparities based on salary, promotion, and training policies that left significant discretion in the hands of individual managers. The district court denied class certification. In response to enactment of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, Pub L. No. 111-2, plaintiff again moved for class certification, focusing on Allstate's uniform compensation policies. The court again denied certification, citing lack of common issues. On appeal, plaintiffs argued disparate impact, claiming that a policy of awarding merit increases based on a percentage of base pay and of comparing salaries to its competitors caused gender-based disparities in earnings. The Seventh Circuit affirmed denial of class certification, stating that plaintiffs did not meaningfully develop the disparate impact claim before the district court, where plaintiffs argued only a pattern-or-practice claim, a type of intentional discrimination. View "Puffer v. Allstate Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Current and former African–American employees brought suit alleging that they were exposed to a racially hostile work environment in defendant's warehouses and, in response to a motion for summary judgment, submitted a detailed list of incidents, scattered sporadically over 25 years, including vulgar graffiti, overtly racist comments by coworkers, and racially motivated pranks. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the employer. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The district court properly found that plaintiffs failed to show they were aware of the majority of harassment alleged by their fellow employees and correctly concluded that plaintiffs' claims should be considered individually. View "Berryman v. Supervalu Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a class action suit, charging racial discrimination in employment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. 1981 and sought class certification (FRCP 23(b)(2) and 23(c)(4)) for deciding whether defendant engaged in practices that have a disparate impact on members of the class. The district court denied certification. After determining that appeal was timely, based on a renewed motion for certification made in reliance on the Supreme Court's 2011 decision, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, the Seventh Circuit reversed. Whether defendant's company-wide policies put blacks at a disadvantage is a question common to the class. While individual suits may be necessary to determine damages, that question could be resolved in a single proceeding, making limited class action treatment appropriate. View "McReynolds v. Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, and drivers similarly situated, filed a class action against Affinity alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., and California laws, including failure to pay overtime, failure to pay wages, improper charges for workers' compensation insurance, and the unfair business practice of wrongfully classifying California drivers. On appeal, plaintiff contended that the district court, after applying California's choice of law framework, erred when it concluded that Georgia law applied. The district court concluded that under Georgia law there was a presumption of independent contractor status and to rebut this presumption, plaintiff must establish that an employer-employee relationship existed. The district court found that plaintiff was unable to establish such a relationship and failed to rebut Georgia's presumption. The court held that the parties' choice of Georgia law was unenforceable in California. The court also held that under California's choice of law framework, the law of California applied. Accordingly, on remand, the district court shall apply California law to determine whether the drivers were employees or independent contractors. View "Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corp." on Justia Law

Named Claimants filed "class proofs of claims" in these consolidated bankruptcy cases in which Circuit City and related entities are the debtors. Named Claimants alleged that they, together with unnamed claimants, were owed almost $150 million in unpaid overtime wages. The court affirmed the decisions of the bankruptcy court with a different procedural approach for allowing claimants to file class proofs of claim and to present Rule 9014 motions. With respect to the bankruptcy court's ruling that in the circumstances of this case, the bankruptcy process would provide a process superior to the class action process for resolving the claims of former employees, the court concluded that the court's ruling fell within its discretion. With respect to these Named Claimants' challenge to notice, the court concluded that the notice to them was not constitutionally deficient - a conclusion with which they agreed - and that, with respect to unnamed claimants, the Named Claimants lacked standing to challenge the notice. View "Gentry v. Circuit City Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed from the judgment of the district court dismissing as time-barred their putative class action complaint against their former employer and the employer's pension plan for benefits alleged to be due under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. Plaintiffs asserted that the district court erred when it looked past the six-year New York limitations period for contract actions; applied part of the New York regime known as the "borrowing statute," which directed it to Pennsylvania law; and ruled that Pennsylvania's four-year limitations period barred plaintiffs' claims. The court held that in an action for benefits under 29 U.S.C. 1132, the court applied the forums state's statute of limitations, including its borrowing statute. Therefore, the district court was correct in applying New York's borrowing statute and plaintiffs' claims were untimely under Pennsylvania law. View "Muto, et al. v. CBS Corp." on Justia Law