Wage & Hour Class And Collective Action Review – 2025

defendant subsequently moved to decertify the collective action, arguing that the plaintiff failed to show that the opt-ins were similarly-situated. The court granted the motion. The plaintiffs and opt-in plaintiffs involved were delivery drivers classified as independent contractors by the defendant. However, the court found that the determination of overtime worked varied individually, depending on the unique circumstances of each driver’s schedule. Specifically, the drivers operated in distinct regions or served different client bases, which affected the amount of time spent driving and the amount of time spent working overtime. The court further determined that the drivers had different supervisors or managers overseeing their work, which could lead to differences in work expectations, scheduling, and potentially the hours worked. Although all drivers were classified as independent contractors by the defendant, the court also reasoned could have been variations in how each driver managed their time and how they reported hours worked. Additionally, any differences in compensation policies or practices could impact whether overtime was accurately recorded and compensated. The court also stated that the decision to work overtime was largely dependent on the individual driver’s discretion. Unlike cases involving clear policies like donning and doffing or automatic lunch breaks, where the requirement to perform certain activities is uniform, the decision to work overtime is based on the driver’s choice to schedule longer routes or accept additional deliveries. The court concluded that differences among the drivers centered on the individualized nature of their job duties, work schedules, geographic areas served, supervisory oversight, and the discretionary nature of working overtime. For these reasons, the court granted the defendant’s motion for decertification. In Hernandez, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Case No. 21-CV-166 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2024), the defendant was able to defeat class certification by demonstrating that extensive individual inquiries would be necessary to determine liability. In that case, the plaintiffs, a group of non-exempt retail employees, filed a class action alleging that the defendant failed to pay for meal breaks and for cell phone reimbursements in violation of the California Labor Code. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and the court denied the motion. The court first found that determining whether the defendant was liable for cell phone expenses would require individual assessments of each employee’s usage and necessity, and there was no evidence that the defendant mandated the use of personal phones for work. The plaintiffs next argued the defendant altered timekeeping records to appear compliant with meal break laws. However, the court determined that the plaintiffs failed to show that all meal period entries were non-compliant or that the defendant’s actions were systematic. The court noted that the reasons for missed or interrupted breaks could vary by each individual and the evidence did not conclusively establish the defendant’s liability for the meal break violations. The court ruled that the plaintiffs’ claims could not proceed on a class-wide basis because they would require extensive individual inquiries rather than class-wide determinations. For these reasons, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Demonstrating the uniqueness of the named plaintiff’s claims can also prevent class certification, as demonstrated by the ruling in Depina, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package Systems Inc ., Case No. 23-CV-156 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2024). The plaintiff, a package handler, filed a class action alleging that the defendant violated various sections of the California Labor Code. The plaintiff moved for class certification of the claims pursuant to Rule 23. The plaintiff sought to certify a class consisting of approximately 69,000 package handlers in: (i) a security check sub-class of handlers subject to security screening; (ii) a security check meal period sub-class; (iii) a security check rest break sub-class; and (iv) a recordkeeping meal period sub-class. The court denied the motion. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant subjected all individuals entering and exiting each facility to entry and exit screening. Id. at 3. However, the security practices at each facility were different, as some as metal detectors, others had turnstiles, some had long lines, and some had no wait at all. The defendant also utilized two methods for paying employees for time spent undergoing security screenings, including a flat rate amount and a security time clock that measured the amount of time. As to meal periods, the plaintiff contended that package handlers must clock-out for meal periods and rest breaks and that if they left the facility during that time, their meal or rest period would be shortened due to going through the security screening to reenter the facility. However, the defendant offered testimony from several employees stating that screening process did not impact meal periods or rest periods. Finally, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant’s timekeeping records recorded a late, short, or missed meal or rest break. The court determined that the plaintiff failed to establish that the questions of whether all package handlers were subject to the same allegedly unlawful conduct could be applied on a class-wide basis. For example, the court noted that the testimony showed that some of the employees were subject to unpaid security screenings, some were paid a flat amount per screening, and some were never unpaid or underpaid for time spent in screenings. Further, the court stated that some employees stayed on the premise during their breaks, and some left the facility. The court also ruled that there was no

Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online