members. The court further determined that the plaintiffs’ claims were typical to those of the putative class members because they all consisted of minimum wage violations. The court also opined that the plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ counsel met the adequacy requirement. As to the Rule 23(b) requirements, the defendant argued that individual liability issues predominated because not all class members claimed minimum wage damages. The court disagreed. It found that the predominant question was whether the defendant had a duty to maintain payroll records and whether it failed to do so, which was a common issue. The court opined that a class action would be the superior method of adjudication because there were at least 356 drivers who had chosen not to opt-out of the AMWA class, and the class members did not wish to individually control the prosecution of separate actions for their AMWA claims. Id. at *20. Further, the court noted that there were no pending duplicative lawsuits, and considering judicial economy, the extensive litigation and resources both parties had expended, and the familiarity the court had with the case, class treatment was superior. For these reasons, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23. A unified legal theory of liability can also result in certification, as shown by Deutsch, et al. v. My Pillow, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73209 (D. Minn. Apr. 27, 2023). The plaintiffs, a group of call center employees, filed a class and collective action alleging that the defendant failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA, failed to timely pay straight time wages in violation of the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act (MPWA), and failed to keep accurate records in violation of the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act (MFLSA). The court previously had granted conditional certification of a collective action for the FLSA claims. The plaintiffs subsequently moved for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 for the state law claims under the MPWA and the MFLSA. The court began its analysis by determining that the class was sufficiently numerous at around 50 individuals. The court also found that common questions and common answers predominated and that individualized questions about damages did not preclude class certification. The court concluded that the plaintiffs met the typicality requirement because they and the putative class all had claims alleging that the defendant failed to compensate employees for time spent booting up their computers and logging-in to work under the same legal theory. The court also noted that the class representatives would fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The court concluded that a class action would be superior to other methods of adjudication, and granted the plaintiffs’ motion. In misclassification cases, plaintiffs can utilize common policies to prove the primary duties justifying exempt classification. For example, in Prinzo, et al. v. Hannaford Bros. Co., LLC, 343 F.R.D. 250 (D. Mass. 2023), the plaintiff, a grocery store department manager, filed a class action asserting that the defendant misclassified managers as exempt employees and thereby failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Massachusetts wage & hour laws. The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23, and the court granted the motion. The plaintiff sought to certify a class including all: (i) Bakery Sales Managers; (ii) Deli Sales Managers; (iii) Deli/Bakery Sales Managers; (iv) Produce Sales Managers; (v) Meat Market Managers; (vi) Meat Market/Seafood Sales Managers; and (vii) Deli/Seafood Managers who did not receive overtime premium pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, did not receive a premium for hours worked on Sunday, or did not receive a premium for hours worked on Protected Holidays. Id. at *251. The court held that there were sufficient common elements to warrant class certification, as all class members had suffered an identical injury and their grievances were based on the fact that they were misclassified as exempt workers. The court also concluded that the common inquiry as to liability, i.e., whether the defendant ’ s department managers were misclassified as exempt, predominated over any individual issues. The court further explained that the defendant ’ s corporate policies and procedures provided sufficient common evidence to allow for class-wide adjudication, and provided common answers as to the “primary duty” inquiry for the management employees. For these reasons, the court granted the plaintiff ’ s motion for class certification. Finally, Defendants that intend to seek decertification must do so in a timely manner to prevent a plaintiff from blocking the motion due to undue delay, the situation presented in Prince, et al. v. Kansas City Tree Care, LLC , 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28735 (D. Kan. Feb. 21, 2023). There the plaintiffs filed a collective
39
© Duane Morris LLP 2024
Wage & Hour Class And Collective Action Review – 2024
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online