California law. Id. at *8. Turning to the requirements under Rule 23(b), the court determined that the issues likely to be presented by the claims were common to the class, and were premised on common policies and practice employed by the defendant. Finally, the court found that the common claims predominated over any individual questions of law or fact and a class action was therefore superior relative to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. For these reasons, the court granted the plaintiff ’ s motion for class certification. Another example of certification based on common practices experienced by putative class members is Maslic, et al. v. ISM Vuzem D.O.O., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109851 (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2023). The plaintiffs, a group of 14 individuals who claim that they were transported to the United States to provide labor for American companies, filed a class action against the defendants for wage and hour violations under federal and state law, as well as for human trafficking under federal and state law. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23, and the court granted the motion. The court found that the class was sufficiently numerous at 177 individuals. The court also stated that there were common questions of law or fact among the putative class members, including whether the defendants paid non- exempt employees a flat rate per month that resulted in an hourly rate less than minimum wage; paid non- exempt employees a flat rate per month that did not include overtime; failed to provide meal and rest breaks; failed to provide wage statements; and failed to pay all wages due at the time of termination. Id. at *10. The court ruled that the plaintiffs’ claims were typical of the putative class, as they all experienced similar employment practices and violations as other class members. The court found that the plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ counsel did not have conflicts of interest with other class members and would vigorously prosecute the class action. As for the Rule 23(b) factors, the court concluded that the common questions predominated over individual questions, as they go to the core of the class claim, and a class action would be the superior method for adjudicating these claims. The court opined that the class members would be unlikely to pursue their claims individually, making a class action more desirable. For these reasons, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The failure to rebut common policies and demonstrate sufficient individualized issues precluding certification can be devastating, as shown by Arrison, et al. v. Walmart Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119213 (D. Ariz. July 11, 2023). The plaintiffs, a group of retail workers, filed a class action alleging that the defendant failed to pay all wages due in violation of the Arizona Wage Act. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23, alleging that all retail associates were required to complete COVID- 19 screening prior to their shifts, and that the defendant failed to pay for the time spent undergoing the screenings. The plaintiffs sought to certify a class consisting of all Arizona non-exempt associates who underwent mandatory COVID screenings. The court found that the class, at approximately 79,970 hourly associates and a sub-class of about 15,986 members, was sufficiently numerous. The court determined that common questions of law and fact related to the defendant ’ s COVID screening policies and payment practices applied to all class members. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs’ claims were typical to those of the class because they all experienced the same screening policies and payment practices. The court concluded that the named representatives had no conflicts with the class, shared a common interest with the class, and would vigorously represent the class. As to the Rule 23(b) requirements, the court held that questions common to class members predominated over individual questions, and a class action would be the superior method for adjudication for the efficient resolution of the case. Accordingly, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. One type of common issue that can lead to class certification is the failure to maintain payroll records, as was the case in Salazar, et al. v. Driver Provider Phoenix LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15301 (D. Ariz. Jan. 30, 2023). The plaintiffs, a group of drivers, filed a class action alleging that the defendant violated the Arizona Minimum Wage Act (AMWA) by failing to pay the minimum wage and failing to provide and maintain accurate payroll records. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 and the court granted the motion. The court found that the plaintiffs met the numerosity requirement and that the defendant did not contest numerosity. The court stated that there was the question of whether the defendant was required to keep payroll records and failed to do so, which was common to all putative class
38
© Duane Morris LLP 2024
Wage & Hour Class And Collective Action Review – 2024
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online