employees in California, and the defendant argued that the plaintiff could not satisfy the typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23(a) because the plaintiff had not signed an arbitration agreement while the majority of the putative class members had signed arbitration agreements. The court agreed with the defendant, holding that the proposed class must be narrowed to exclude members who signed arbitration agreements. As a result, the defendant ’ s motion to deny class certification was granted based on the currently defined class, with the court reasoning that the plaintiff was not an adequate representative for the defined class given the majority of the class had signed arbitration agreements. Where preemption is an available argument, defendants also can utilize it to successfully end far-reaching wage and hour lawsuits. For example, in Cota, et al. v. Fresenius USA, Inc., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 2171 (9th Cir. Jan. 27, 2023), the plaintiff, a driver, filed a class action together with a representative cause of action under the Private Attorneys General Act, against his employer asserting violations of the meal and rest break requirements (MRB Rules) of the California Labor Code. In December 2018, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration declared the MRB Rules preempted by federal regulations as applied to certain commercial drivers, pursuant to its authority under 49 U.S.C. § 31141. The defendant thereafter moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted in full on the basis it was unable to enforce the plaintiff ’ s MRB Rules claims under the 2018 order. Id. at *2. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court ’ s ruling. The plaintiff asserted that the 2018 order did not preclude claims predicated on conduct pre-dating the order. The Ninth Circuit rejected that position. It explained that it previously had found that it lacked authority to enforce preempted claims arising under California ’ s MRB Rules no matter when the conduct occurred. Id. at *2-3. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the district court did not err by granting the defendant ’ s motion for summary judgment. The defendant in Aziz, et al. v. City Of Newark , 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79045 (D.N.J. May 3, 2023), focused on defending the case by excluding a critical mass of opt-in plaintiffs based on the applicable statute of limitations. The plaintiffs, who trained at the New Jersey State Police Academy, claimed they were required to work long hours without overtime pay in violation of the FLSA and state wage & labor laws. The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of a collective action. The defendant argued that 79 of the plaintiffs who opted-in to the collective action did so after the FLSA ’ s statute of limitations had expired. The FLSA requires claims for unpaid overtime to be filed within two years, or three years in the case of willful violations, with the statute of limitations running from the date the cause of action accrued. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments for equitable tolling, finding that they failed to demonstrate that the defendant actively misled them or that the delays, including those related to the COVID-19 pandemic and discovery matters, were extraordinary and beyond their control. The court granted the defendant ’ s motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the FLSA claims for the 79 plaintiffs who filed notices of consent after the statutory deadline had passed. Finally, novel questions of state law often can be utilized to successfully delay and ultimately defeat state law wage and hour claims. In Buero, et al. v. Amazon.Com Services, Inc., 61 F.4th 1031 (9th Cir. 2023), the plaintiff, a former warehouse employee, filed a class action alleging that the defendants failed to pay for time spent waiting for and undergoing mandatory security screenings in violation of Oregon ’ s wage & hour laws. The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit found that there was no clear legal precedent from Oregon on the issue, and thus certified the question to the Oregon Supreme Court of whether time that employees spend on the employer ’ s premises waiting for and undergoing mandatory security screenings was compensable under Oregon wage & hour law. The Oregon Supreme Court determined that Oregon law aligned with federal law in terms of what activities are considered compensable. According to both Oregon and federal law, time spent waiting for and undergoing mandatory security screenings on the employer ’ s premises is only compensable if it falls under one of two exceptions: (i) either it is an integral and indispensable part of the employee ’ s primary duties; or (ii) it is compensable based on contract, custom, or practice. As a result, the Ninth Circuit analyzed the plaintiff ’ s claims using this guidance. Id. at 1033. It ruled that the plaintiff ’ s complaint failed to establish that either of the exceptions applied. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court did not err in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
27
© Duane Morris LLP 2024
Wage & Hour Class And Collective Action Review – 2024
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online