Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

Court watchers following the ripple effects of groundbreaking wage and hour opinion Swales v. KLLM Transport Services, LLC, 985 F.3d 430 (5th Cir. 2021) (“Swales”) may have gained their first insight into the Supreme Court’s thought process following Chief Justice John Robert’s refusal to pause a conditional collective action certification in Maximus Inc. v. Thomas, et al., No. 22A164, currently pending in the Eastern District of Virginia and following this decision and a failed appeal from the Fourth Circuit.

For over 30 years, most district courts throughout the country have used a two-step conditional certification process to govern certification of collective actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  But in its recent and game-changing opinion, Swales v. KLLM Transport Services, LLC, the Fifth Circuit rejected that two-step process and laid out a stricter framework for FLSA collective actions.

This month, the Southern District of Florida declined to certify a nationwide class of Denny’s servers alleging the restaurant chain had violated the minimum wage and tip credit provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) on the basis that the named plaintiff failed to provide enough evidence that the servers were similarly situated.

Plaintiff Lindsay Rafferty worked as a server at a Denny’s restaurant in Akron, Ohio from February 2012 through October 2018.  On November 13, 2019, Rafferty filed a lawsuit against Denny’s alleging that the restaurant paid its employee servers a sub-minimum hour wage under the tip credit provisions of the FLSA and that Denny’s required its servers to perform non-tipped “sidework.”

A federal district court in Florida recently declined to conditionally certify a nationwide collective action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) because the plaintiff did not show sufficient evidence that she was similarly situated to other restaurant managers who wanted to join.

The Ninth Circuit recently overturned a district court’s grant of class certification on a wage statement claim under California Labor Code §226 because there were no “real-world consequences” stemming from the alleged misidentification of the employer’s name on the wage statement. Lerna Mays, a former Wal-Mart employee, brought a putative wage and hour class action alleging various claims, including a claim that Wal-Mart violated Section 226 because her employer was Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., but her pay stubs listed “Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.” The district court granted certification of plaintiff’s wage statement claim, and Wal-Mart appealed.

In Corona Regional Medical Center v. Sali, No. 18-1262 (May 3, 2019), the Supreme Court recently dismissed a petition for a writ of certiorari that would have resolved a circuit split as to whether expert testimony must be admissible to be considered at the class certification stage.  As a result, the Ninth Circuit remains one of only two circuits that have ruled workers are not required to submit admissible evidence to support a motion for class certification.  In contrast, the Second, Third, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits have all held that expert testimony must be admissible to be considered at the class certification stage.

Earlier this month, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) settled a long-standing debate amongst opposing parties in wage-hour class actions regarding the standard for class certification. The SJC’s decision in Gammella v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc., No. SJC-12604, 2019 WL 1575527, definitively establishes that Rule 23 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure – viewed as a stricter standard for certification and the same civil standard applicable to most other Massachusetts state court class actions – is the applicable standard for determining class certification in wage and hour cases.   The SJC also weighed in on satisfaction of the “numerosity” requirement for certification under Rule 23 and held that a rejected offer of judgment to a named plaintiff that covers all potential damages does not cut off that plaintiff’s claims.

Background

As we wrote about last month, on May 21, 2018, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1632 (2018), rejecting perhaps the largest remaining obstacles to the enforcement of class action waivers in arbitration agreements in the employment context.  The Court concluded that the class action waivers did not violate the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).  Although the Court’s opinion also seemed dispositive of whether such agreements could be avoided under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), at least one claimant tried to continue to litigate the issue, which was disposed of last week in Gaffers v. Kelly Servs., Inc., No. 16-2210 (6th Cir. 2018).  And now the Sixth Circuit has addressed whether Epic Systems would apply to arbitration agreements with putative independent contractors who contended that they should have been treated as employees.

When a party receives an adverse order on a motion for class certification, whether the court of appeals grants permission to appeal under Rule 23(f) can be a crucial turning point in the case.  If the appellate court will not hear this interlocutory appeal, the only way to obtain review of that decision is to take the case through trial, to a final judgment.  But, due to the high stakes and large costs involved, few class actions are tried and cases often settle after the class certification order is issued by the trial court.

On January 20, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, affirming the Ninth Circuit’s decision that a defendant cannot moot a putative class action by offering full relief to the individual plaintiff.

On August 12, 2015, the Fifth Circuit held that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment to a named plaintiff in a class action does not render the plaintiff’s claim moot. In Hooks v. Landmark Indus., Inc., No. 14-20496 (5th Cir. 2015), the Fifth Circuit joined the minority of Circuit Courts—Second, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits—and held that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer is a legal nullity, with no operative effect. The majority of the Circuit Courts to decide this issue —Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Tenth, and Federal Circuits—have all held that a complete Rule 68 offer moots an individual’s claim.

On May 29, 2014, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Duran v. U.S. Bank National Association, remanding the case to the trial court due to the trial court’s flawed trial methodology.

In several recent cases in California, courts have applied Brinker Restaurant Corp., et al. v. Superior Court to reverse trial court decisions denying class certification.  Brinker is the ground breaking case in California where the California Supreme Court held that employers are only required to provide the opportunity for employees to take 30 minute meal breaks, but are not required to ensure those breaks are actually taken.  The Brinker court also held that where an employer has a uniformly-applied policy that is unlawful, class certification may be appropriate.  The recent ...

Employers across the Country are relying on Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes (2011) 131 S.Ct. 2541 to fight class certification or to file decertification motions.  Many are finding success, and for good reason.  Dukes is a major obstacle to class certification.  However, in a recent California appeals decision, Williams v. Superior Court (Allstate Insurance Company), December 6, 2013, Second District, Div. Eight, 2013 S.O.S. B244043, the appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion when it decertified a class based on Dukes.  The trial court found that Dukes

On March 27, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court held that evidence of class-wide injury must survive a “rigorous analysis” before a putative class can be certified.  Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, No. 11–864, 2013 WL 1222646, at *5 (U.S. March 27, 2013). While the Comcast case involved subscribers to Comcast’s cable television service who filed a class action lawsuit alleging anti-trust violations and monopolization, the decision is significant for employers facing class actions.