Moen v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., No. A153386 (D1d5 Aug 1, 2018)
A class action against the UC brought by some Retirees at the Lawrence Livermore lab. Retirees claim that the UC system either implicitly or explicitly promised them health insurance and that the UC’s failure to honor those promises after the lab was privatized is an unconstitutional impairment of contract. The case has been pending for eight years. A class was ultimately certified, and a part of the case about the UC system’s authority to enter the alleged contracts was tried. Retirees won.
But the UC then moved to decertify the class, arguing that the rest of the case—about whether promises were actually made and relied upon—was too individualized to be addressed class-wide. The trial court agreed and decertified the class. Retirees appeal.
The Court of Appeal reverses, in part. Contract formation is typically an individualized question. But Retirees’ theory is that the UC had a uniform practice of offering the benefits and that the benefits were implicitly accepted by the retirees when they came and/or continued to work for the lab. Under the circumstances, there was enough commonality among the members of the class for the contract formation issues to be tried class-wide. Similarly, the mostly legal issue of whether contracts, if formed, were impaired, could be addressed by a class because it did not require specific proof of economic injury.
On the other hand, damages could not be decided on a class-wide basis. That would require an assessment of the value of the allegedly promised policy versus the value of what each Retiree ultimately received, which could have a great deal of variety of factors, including each Retiree’s actual use of the heath care benefits provided.
Reversed in part.
Showing posts with label policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label policy. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 10, 2018
Tuesday, March 13, 2018
Big Class Certified Under Brinker
In re ABM Indus. Overtime Cases, No. A132387 (D1d4 Jan. 10, 2018)
This is a big wage and hour class action—it covers 35,000 janitors—and it has been pending for a long time—the complaint was filed in 2007 and the first notice of appeal in 2011. Indeed, the appeal has been pending so long that the trial court’s order denying class cert predates Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004, 1049 (2012), the California Supreme Court’s seminal decision on class cert in wage-and-hour cases.
This is a big wage and hour class action—it covers 35,000 janitors—and it has been pending for a long time—the complaint was filed in 2007 and the first notice of appeal in 2011. Indeed, the appeal has been pending so long that the trial court’s order denying class cert predates Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004, 1049 (2012), the California Supreme Court’s seminal decision on class cert in wage-and-hour cases.
Thursday, August 13, 2015
Break Time ...
Safeway v. Superior Court, No. B255216 (D2d4 Jul. 22, 2015)
This is yet another class cert decision that turns on the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004 (2012). The class is huge—like 200,000 grocery employees over five-and-a-half years. The theory is that Safeway had a consistent practice of not paying the premium wages required under Labor Code § 226.7 “when required,” i.e., whenever it caused the employee to miss a meal break. It’s pretty clear that the top-level theory is certifiable. If a company has a policy of not doing something it’s required to do under wage and hour law, that usually falls within the Brinker standard. The real point of contention is that a premium wage is only owed if the employee doesn’t actually get her break.
Does that mean that, in the absence of a policy not to allow breaks—no one contends that existed—the court will need to do an employee-by-employee assessment of whether breaks were missed? The court of appeal says no. All that has to be shown is a significantly common injury that is subject to class-wide proof. Here, a sampling of Defendants’ payroll records showed that it never paid premium wages under § 226.7, and that there were numerous instances where meal breaks were not clocked during shifts of five or more hours. (Indeed, plaintiffs’ expert said there were potentially tens of millions of them, based on statistical extrapolation.) Although that wouldn’t make Defendant liable per se—Brinker settled the point that an employer isn’t be liable if a meal break is offered but not taken—the records warrant a rebuttable presumption that the breaks were unlawfully withheld. Given that these points are subject to class wide-proof, the court holds that the trial court did not err in certifying a class.
Affirmed.
This is yet another class cert decision that turns on the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004 (2012). The class is huge—like 200,000 grocery employees over five-and-a-half years. The theory is that Safeway had a consistent practice of not paying the premium wages required under Labor Code § 226.7 “when required,” i.e., whenever it caused the employee to miss a meal break. It’s pretty clear that the top-level theory is certifiable. If a company has a policy of not doing something it’s required to do under wage and hour law, that usually falls within the Brinker standard. The real point of contention is that a premium wage is only owed if the employee doesn’t actually get her break.
Does that mean that, in the absence of a policy not to allow breaks—no one contends that existed—the court will need to do an employee-by-employee assessment of whether breaks were missed? The court of appeal says no. All that has to be shown is a significantly common injury that is subject to class-wide proof. Here, a sampling of Defendants’ payroll records showed that it never paid premium wages under § 226.7, and that there were numerous instances where meal breaks were not clocked during shifts of five or more hours. (Indeed, plaintiffs’ expert said there were potentially tens of millions of them, based on statistical extrapolation.) Although that wouldn’t make Defendant liable per se—Brinker settled the point that an employer isn’t be liable if a meal break is offered but not taken—the records warrant a rebuttable presumption that the breaks were unlawfully withheld. Given that these points are subject to class wide-proof, the court holds that the trial court did not err in certifying a class.
Affirmed.
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Four for Four on Class Cert.
Williams v. Superior Court, No. B382577 (D2d8, as modified, Dec. 24, 2013)
For the fourth time in two months, the court of appeal reverses an order denying class certification in a wage and hour case where the plaintiff’s theory of liability was that the defendant maintained an unlawful overtime policy.
For the fourth time in two months, the court of appeal reverses an order denying class certification in a wage and hour case where the plaintiff’s theory of liability was that the defendant maintained an unlawful overtime policy.
Monday, December 2, 2013
Judicial Restraint
Kurz v. Syrus Systems, Inc., No. H038694 (D6 Nov. 22, 2013)
District Six interprets a provision in the Unemployment Insurance Code to bar the use of an unemployment insurance appeal judgment as evidence in a later case for malicious prosecution. Without that evidence the party bringing the claim could not establish that the appeal had been terminated in its favor. Because that party could not show a likelihood of success, the court holds that a SLAPP motion attacking the claim should have been granted.
District Six interprets a provision in the Unemployment Insurance Code to bar the use of an unemployment insurance appeal judgment as evidence in a later case for malicious prosecution. Without that evidence the party bringing the claim could not establish that the appeal had been terminated in its favor. Because that party could not show a likelihood of success, the court holds that a SLAPP motion attacking the claim should have been granted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)