asserted that the defendant ’ s rounding policy involved rounding employees’ clock-in and clock-out times to the nearest quarter-hour but not for more than seven minutes. If an employee clocked in or out within seven minutes of their shift, the time was rounded to the actual shift time. The policy also included provisions regarding meal breaks. The defendant argued that the analysis of plaintiff ’ s expert indicated that only 87.9% of the employees were harmed by the rounding policy. The court found that the plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated that the class was numerous enough to justify class certification. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff ’ s claims were atypical because her work circumstances were different from the majority of employees. However, the court disagreed. It found that the plaintiff ’ s claims were typical to those of the class members because they were all based on the same rounding policy that applied to all employees. Regarding the adequacy requirement, the court did not find any conflicts of interest between the plaintiff, her counsel, and the proposed class members and opined that the plaintiff and her counsel would adequately represent the class. However, in evaluating the Rule 23(b) requirements, the court determined that individual issues related to the rounding policy ’ s application to pre-shift activities and meal breaks predominated over common questions. Accordingly, the court denied the plaintiff ’ s motion for class certification. Grainger, et al. v. Precision Of New Hampton, Inc., 343 F.R.D. 416 (N.D. Iowa Feb. 7, 2023), demonstrates how a defendant may use the subjective understanding of class members to demonstrate the individualized issues necessary to avoid class certification. The plaintiff filed a class action alleging that the defendant failed to pay agreed-upon bonuses in violation of the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Law. The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, arguing that the bonuses were guaranteed based on job advertisements, paystubs, and the employee handbook. The defendant contended that the bonuses were discretionary and depended on the company ’ s performance and available funds. The defendant ’ s bonuses were communicated through an “effective hourly rate” listed on employee paystubs. The plaintiff alleged that this rate was not paid as promised, while the defendant stated that it was a retrospective calculation and not the basis for determining future bonuses. The court found that the plaintiff failed to meet the typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23(a). The court also determined that individualized issues regarding employees’ understanding of bonus policies and communications with supervisors would predominate over common questions. Therefore, the court concluded that class treatment would not be superior to adjudicating individual actions and denied the plaintiff ’ s motion for class certification. Mebane, et al. v. GKN Driveline North America, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83428 (M.D.N.C. May 12, 2023), is also a good example of how defendants can use claims of uncompensated work for pre-shift or post-shift work, as well as meal periods, to demonstrate the insufficiency of a collective action due to individualized issues. In that case, the plaintiffs filed a class and collective action alleging that the defendants failed to pay all wages due in violation of the FLSA and state wage & hour laws. The court previously had granted conditional certification for a collective action on the plaintiffs’ rounding and automatic deduction claims. The defendants filed a motion to decertify the rounding collective action, which consisted of individuals employed in non-managerial positions at the defendant ’ s North Carolina facilities who alleged unpaid wages due to the timekeeping rounding policies, as well as the automatic deduction collective action, which included individuals making similar claims related to unpaid work during meal breaks. The defendant argued that the rounding policy did not uniformly lead to unpaid work, as some employees gained time due to rounding. Additionally, the defendants contended that individual employees had different experiences regarding the compensability of their pre-shift and post-shift activities. The court granted the defendant ’ s motion to decertify the collective action, finding that the claims required highly individualized inquiries and that the evidence did not support collective-wide treatment. The court also emphasized the lack of common proof for the uncompensated work and the highly individualized nature of the meal break work claims. As a result, the court granted the defendants’ motion for decertification. Evidence demonstrating individualized interactions with supervisors was crucial to achieving decertification in Pittman, et al. v. CACI International, Case No. 21-CV-2044 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2023). In that case, the plaintiffs, a group of background investigators, filed a class and collective action alleging that the defendant failed to pay overtime compensation by underreporting investigators’ hours and requiring them to work
31
© Duane Morris LLP 2024
Wage & Hour Class And Collective Action Review – 2024
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online