Palacia v. Jan & Gail’s Care Homes, Inc., No. F070861 (D5 Dec. 7, 2014)
Another meal break case where the question is, under Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004 (2012), has the employee articulated a class-wide policy by the employer that violates the wage and hour laws? Here, plaintiff, a vocational nurse at a nursing home, was required to waive any uninterrupted unpaid lunch break in exchange for a paid lunch (with lunch provided) that she had to eat in the company of her patients. Plaintiff claims the employer was required to inform her, and the other nurses, that they had the right to revoke the waiver at any time. But the relevant wage order permits twenty-four-hour residential care facilities to require on-the-clock paid lunches, with or without the employee’s consent. Since the employer’s policy was legal as a matter of law, there’s no predominant common issue that merited class cert. While that sounds like an issue that should have been nipped in the bud on a demurrer, it’s good enough to deny class cert too. (The court notes elsewhere that that “[c]lass action requirements are often enmeshed with issues affecting the merits of the case, and courts must often peek into the merits for this reason.”) So class cert was properly denied.
Affirmed.
Showing posts with label predominate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label predominate. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 30, 2015
Monday, November 9, 2015
But Can They Handle the Proof?
Alberts v. Aurora Behavioral Health Care, No. B248748 (D2d1 Oct. 16, 2015)
This is a wage and hour class action brought by nurses at two mental hospitals. The trial court denied class cert for lack of commonality grounds, but the court of appeal reverses. The court finds that plaintiffs presented enough evidence that the hospitals had a practice of understaffing that—when combined with the professional and ethical obligations mental health nurses have to their patients—resulted in the routine denial of meal and rest breaks and de facto requirements to work off the clock. At the end of the day, the claims depend on a common contention about whether the hospital’s practices and policies fulfilled its obligations under the Labor Code. That was sufficient to establish commonality, notwithstanding the fact that the evidence submitted at class certs showed that the denials of breaks and the unpaid overtime were far from universal within the class.
The court notes, however, that on remand, the trial court should consider whether the common issues actually predominate and whether the case is manageable as a class action. Justice Rothschild, concurs, reiterating this point. He notes that the alleged illegality here does not arise from on official policy, but from a de facto one. While he agrees with the court that whether or not that existed is a common question, he points out that a de facto policy case is likely to implicate much more individualized proof of liability. In those instances, the line between a voluntarily missed break and a by-the-circumstances compelled one is blurry. Moreover, the record in this case revealed a lot of complexity in the number of class members, variety in job duty and location, and variety in the class members' actual experiences with meal and break issues. Under those circumstances, managing a trial of the case could prove pretty difficult. So Justice Rothschild suggests that the trial court should take a hard look on issues of manageability and predominance on remand before agreeing to certification.
Reversed.
This is a wage and hour class action brought by nurses at two mental hospitals. The trial court denied class cert for lack of commonality grounds, but the court of appeal reverses. The court finds that plaintiffs presented enough evidence that the hospitals had a practice of understaffing that—when combined with the professional and ethical obligations mental health nurses have to their patients—resulted in the routine denial of meal and rest breaks and de facto requirements to work off the clock. At the end of the day, the claims depend on a common contention about whether the hospital’s practices and policies fulfilled its obligations under the Labor Code. That was sufficient to establish commonality, notwithstanding the fact that the evidence submitted at class certs showed that the denials of breaks and the unpaid overtime were far from universal within the class.
The court notes, however, that on remand, the trial court should consider whether the common issues actually predominate and whether the case is manageable as a class action. Justice Rothschild, concurs, reiterating this point. He notes that the alleged illegality here does not arise from on official policy, but from a de facto one. While he agrees with the court that whether or not that existed is a common question, he points out that a de facto policy case is likely to implicate much more individualized proof of liability. In those instances, the line between a voluntarily missed break and a by-the-circumstances compelled one is blurry. Moreover, the record in this case revealed a lot of complexity in the number of class members, variety in job duty and location, and variety in the class members' actual experiences with meal and break issues. Under those circumstances, managing a trial of the case could prove pretty difficult. So Justice Rothschild suggests that the trial court should take a hard look on issues of manageability and predominance on remand before agreeing to certification.
Reversed.
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Uninsured and Unascertainable
Hale v. Sharp Healthcare, No. D064023 (D4d1 Dec. 5, 2014)
In this UCL and CLRA case brought as a putative class action, plaintiff alleges that defendant, a hospital group, charged her and her fellow class members higher fees for medical services because they were uninsured. The trial court initially certified a class based on a common question: whether the defendant represented to uninsured patients that they would be charged “regular rates,” but failed to do so.
But defendant later filed a motion to decertify. It claimed that the class was not ascertainable, because its members could not be identified without an individualized examination of 120,000 patients’ billing records. Further, it said that class treatment was not a superior method to litigate the case because there was no manageable way to determine class-wide entitlement to damages. The trial court granted the motion and the plaintiff appealed.
The court of appeal affirms on both grounds. Because of the way the class was defined and the hospital’s practice of not obtaining insurance information until after treatment was provided, the class was unascertainable. The evidence showed that in many instances, uninsured patients ultimately paid rates that were far below what the hospital obtained from insurance companies, Medicare, and Medicaid. This could be due to rate reductions, charity payments, undiscovered coverage, or payments by third parties. But the hospital didn’t maintain information on ultimate payment outcomes on an aggregate basis, and, despite their efforts, the parties were unable to come up with a methodology for identifying patients who paid more than insured payments.
Further, there was a lack of predominance of common issues as to whether the class members were entitled to damages. In coming to this result, the court distinguishes a number of wage and hour cases requiring certification where the common issue is whether the employer maintained an unlawful policy. According to the court, these cases might have differed in the amount of damages, but if the plaintiff theory proved correct, the fact of damages could be determined on a classwide basis. In contrast, in this case, whether or not each plaintiff was damaged at all required a case-by-case assessment, which precluded any liability determination on a classwide basis.
This result seems mostly reasonable. But I don’t know if I’m entirely comfortable with a ruling that denies class certification based largely on the fact that the defendant maintained its business records in a way that makes it tough to ascertain who is in a plaintiff class. Seems like a bad incentive.
Affirmed.
In this UCL and CLRA case brought as a putative class action, plaintiff alleges that defendant, a hospital group, charged her and her fellow class members higher fees for medical services because they were uninsured. The trial court initially certified a class based on a common question: whether the defendant represented to uninsured patients that they would be charged “regular rates,” but failed to do so.
But defendant later filed a motion to decertify. It claimed that the class was not ascertainable, because its members could not be identified without an individualized examination of 120,000 patients’ billing records. Further, it said that class treatment was not a superior method to litigate the case because there was no manageable way to determine class-wide entitlement to damages. The trial court granted the motion and the plaintiff appealed.
The court of appeal affirms on both grounds. Because of the way the class was defined and the hospital’s practice of not obtaining insurance information until after treatment was provided, the class was unascertainable. The evidence showed that in many instances, uninsured patients ultimately paid rates that were far below what the hospital obtained from insurance companies, Medicare, and Medicaid. This could be due to rate reductions, charity payments, undiscovered coverage, or payments by third parties. But the hospital didn’t maintain information on ultimate payment outcomes on an aggregate basis, and, despite their efforts, the parties were unable to come up with a methodology for identifying patients who paid more than insured payments.
Further, there was a lack of predominance of common issues as to whether the class members were entitled to damages. In coming to this result, the court distinguishes a number of wage and hour cases requiring certification where the common issue is whether the employer maintained an unlawful policy. According to the court, these cases might have differed in the amount of damages, but if the plaintiff theory proved correct, the fact of damages could be determined on a classwide basis. In contrast, in this case, whether or not each plaintiff was damaged at all required a case-by-case assessment, which precluded any liability determination on a classwide basis.
This result seems mostly reasonable. But I don’t know if I’m entirely comfortable with a ruling that denies class certification based largely on the fact that the defendant maintained its business records in a way that makes it tough to ascertain who is in a plaintiff class. Seems like a bad incentive.
Affirmed.
Friday, July 11, 2014
In Control ...
Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, No. S206874 (Cal. June 30, 2014)
Yet again, a trial court gets reversed for denying cert in a wage and hour case. This time, the case involves newspaper delivery persons who claim to have been misclassified as independent contractors, which deprived them of overtime and other employee protections. The trial court focused on the degree of control the paper actually exerted over the workers performance of their duties. Based on the disparate results of its analysis—some were micromanaged while others left to their own devices—it found that common issues didn’t predominate so it declined to certify the class.
Yet again, a trial court gets reversed for denying cert in a wage and hour case. This time, the case involves newspaper delivery persons who claim to have been misclassified as independent contractors, which deprived them of overtime and other employee protections. The trial court focused on the degree of control the paper actually exerted over the workers performance of their duties. Based on the disparate results of its analysis—some were micromanaged while others left to their own devices—it found that common issues didn’t predominate so it declined to certify the class.
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Same Song. Different Band.
Martinez v. Joe’s Crab Shack Holdings, No. B242807 (D2d7 Dec. 4, 2013)
This is yet another reversal of a denial of class certification in a wage-and-hour class action. As in the October decision in the Benton case, which was decided by the same division and is cited in the opinion, as well as last week’s Jones case, the court here holds that the class cert decision is governed by the California Supreme Court’s decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004 (2012), which the court reads as encouraging the use of the class action vehicle in wage and hour disputes. Under Brinker, when deciding whether common issues predominate so as to merit class treatment, the court must direct its inquiry to the plaintiff’s theory of liability and not to idiosyncratic concerns often raised by defendants, which generally go only to individualized damages. Plaintiff’s theory here is that Joe’s Crab Shack had a policy of classifying assistant managers as exempt executive employees, even though the bulk of their duties had all the indicia of non-exempt work. Because that is the kind of question that can be decided on a class-wide basis, the trial court erred in declining to certify a class. That said, the court also suggests that the class maybe shouldn’t be as broad as the one plaintiff defined because the definition included some more senior managers who have more concrete management responsibilities. But the trial court could deal with that on remand.
Reversed and remanded.
This is yet another reversal of a denial of class certification in a wage-and-hour class action. As in the October decision in the Benton case, which was decided by the same division and is cited in the opinion, as well as last week’s Jones case, the court here holds that the class cert decision is governed by the California Supreme Court’s decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004 (2012), which the court reads as encouraging the use of the class action vehicle in wage and hour disputes. Under Brinker, when deciding whether common issues predominate so as to merit class treatment, the court must direct its inquiry to the plaintiff’s theory of liability and not to idiosyncratic concerns often raised by defendants, which generally go only to individualized damages. Plaintiff’s theory here is that Joe’s Crab Shack had a policy of classifying assistant managers as exempt executive employees, even though the bulk of their duties had all the indicia of non-exempt work. Because that is the kind of question that can be decided on a class-wide basis, the trial court erred in declining to certify a class. That said, the court also suggests that the class maybe shouldn’t be as broad as the one plaintiff defined because the definition included some more senior managers who have more concrete management responsibilities. But the trial court could deal with that on remand.
Reversed and remanded.
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
Plaintiffs' Wage & Hour Play: Stick with the Policy
Jones v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, No. B237765 (D2d3 Nov. 26, 2013)
Finding that the plaintiff’s wage and hour case implicated a class-wide policy, the court of appeal reverses a trial court’s denial of class certification.
Finding that the plaintiff’s wage and hour case implicated a class-wide policy, the court of appeal reverses a trial court’s denial of class certification.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)