California District Court Re-Certifies Chinese Daily News Wage and Hour Class Action After Second Trip To Ninth Circuit

by Littler
Contact

On April 15, 2014, in Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., a California federal district court re-certified a Rule 23(b)(3) California state law wage and hour action involving a class of 200 non-exempt employees who alleged their employer routinely required them to work more than 40 hours per week without paying overtime, denied rest and meal breaks, improperly compensated for unused vacation pay, miscalculated the regular rate, and issued inaccurate wage statements.

Background

The district court’s decision is the latest development in a 10-year odyssey that began with the filing of the complaint in March 2004. In January 2005, after the proposed class was narrowed to include only non-exempt employees at one of two facilities, the district court certified an FLSA collective action and a state law class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In June 2006, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs on their inaccurate wage statement, regular rate miscalculation, and vacation pay claims, as well as their claim that reporters do not fall within the “creative professional” exemption.  A 16-day jury trial concluded in January 2007 with an award of $2.5 million to the plaintiffs. After a three-day bench trial on injunctive relief, penalties, pre-judgment interest, and restitution issues, the district court increased damages for the plaintiff class to $5.1 million. In September 2010, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment.  In October 2011, however, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s opinion and remanded the case for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s  June 2011 decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes.

On remand in September 2013, the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s finding on class certification and directed it to reconsider its decision in light of Dukes. The Ninth Circuit also instructed the district court to consider the California Supreme Court’s decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court and recent Ninth Circuit rulings regarding the relevance of uniform exemption policies on class certification.

The Current Decision

On remand, the district court again found that class certification was appropriate on all issues, even in light of the holdings in Dukes and Brinker. The court acknowledged that, after Dukes, it was not enough to show that common questions existed – a party seeking class certification must also show that the questions presented can generate “common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation.” The court found the plaintiffs met this standard by showing that the employer’s “treatment of class members was consistent, not subject to discretion, and that the entire class was injured” by the employer’s conduct. Regarding the unpaid overtime claims, the court found the evidence showed the employer had standard practices of: (1) providing wage statements that showed that hourly employees worked the same number of hours each pay period, regardless of actual hours worked; (2) not paying any premium for overtime hours worked; and (3) not maintaining any system for accurately tracking employee hours.  The court found that on these and other issues relating to the employer’s pay practices and vacation payment policy, the employer had failed to raise any unsettled factual disputes that had to be resolved before finding “a common pattern and practice that could affect the class as a whole.” 

Notably, the court rejected the employer’s argument that claims regarding exemption classification cannot apply commonly across the class and individual inquiries will dominate. First, the court found that the proposed class did not include exempt employees. Second, the court stated it did not base its certification on the employer’s exemption policy. Rather, the court concluded that the common questions warranting class certification did not “require any inquiries into how much time each individual employee spent in or out of the office and how the employee performed her job.” In other words, the court explained, it did not need to look at any employee’s “daily functions.” On these grounds, the court found that the exemption issue did not predominate over the common issues of whether the lawfulness of the employer’s overtime and meal and rest period practices could be determined on a class basis.

The court also found that Brinker did not present a bar to class certification on the plaintiffs’ meal and rest break claims. The plaintiffs alleged that the trial evidence showed the employer did not have a meal and rest period policy, employees were not advised of their right to take meal and rest periods, and the employer discouraged employees from taking breaks except to use the rest room. The court found this evidence demonstrated that class certification was appropriate as to the plaintiffs’ meal and rest claims, even after Brinker.

It may be argued that the district court’s decision in Wang should be limited to its very specific and individualized procedural history and fact pattern, including the extensive summary judgment and trial records and findings. Employers should nevertheless be aware of the more general aspects of the decision, such as the court’s decision regarding the employer’s meal and rest break policy, which is consistent with some other recent California state court decisions.

- See more at: http://www.littler.com/wage-hour-counsel/california-district-court-re-certifies-chinese-daily-news-wage-and-hour-class-acti#sthash.2rObbkPl.dpuf

On April 15, 2014, in Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., a California federal district court re-certified a Rule 23(b)(3) California state law wage and hour action involving a class of 200 non-exempt employees who alleged their employer routinely required them to work more than 40 hours per week without paying overtime, denied rest and meal breaks, improperly compensated for unused vacation pay, miscalculated the regular rate, and issued inaccurate wage statements.

Background

The district court’s decision is the latest development in a 10-year odyssey that began with the filing of the complaint in March 2004. In January 2005, after the proposed class was narrowed to include only non-exempt employees at one of two facilities, the district court certified an FLSA collective action and a state law class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In June 2006, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs on their inaccurate wage statement, regular rate miscalculation, and vacation pay claims, as well as their claim that reporters do not fall within the “creative professional” exemption.  A 16-day jury trial concluded in January 2007 with an award of $2.5 million to the plaintiffs. After a three-day bench trial on injunctive relief, penalties, pre-judgment interest, and restitution issues, the district court increased damages for the plaintiff class to $5.1 million. In September 2010, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment.  In October 2011, however, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s opinion and remanded the case for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s  June 2011 decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes.

On remand in September 2013, the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s finding on class certification and directed it to reconsider its decision in light of Dukes. The Ninth Circuit also instructed the district court to consider the California Supreme Court’s decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court and recent Ninth Circuit rulings regarding the relevance of uniform exemption policies on class certification.

The Current Decision

On remand, the district court again found that class certification was appropriate on all issues, even in light of the holdings in Dukes and Brinker. The court acknowledged that, after Dukes, it was not enough to show that common questions existed – a party seeking class certification must also show that the questions presented can generate “common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation.” The court found the plaintiffs met this standard by showing that the employer’s “treatment of class members was consistent, not subject to discretion, and that the entire class was injured” by the employer’s conduct. Regarding the unpaid overtime claims, the court found the evidence showed the employer had standard practices of: (1) providing wage statements that showed that hourly employees worked the same number of hours each pay period, regardless of actual hours worked; (2) not paying any premium for overtime hours worked; and (3) not maintaining any system for accurately tracking employee hours.  The court found that on these and other issues relating to the employer’s pay practices and vacation payment policy, the employer had failed to raise any unsettled factual disputes that had to be resolved before finding “a common pattern and practice that could affect the class as a whole.” 

Notably, the court rejected the employer’s argument that claims regarding exemption classification cannot apply commonly across the class and individual inquiries will dominate. First, the court found that the proposed class did not include exempt employees. Second, the court stated it did not base its certification on the employer’s exemption policy. Rather, the court concluded that the common questions warranting class certification did not “require any inquiries into how much time each individual employee spent in or out of the office and how the employee performed her job.” In other words, the court explained, it did not need to look at any employee’s “daily functions.” On these grounds, the court found that the exemption issue did not predominate over the common issues of whether the lawfulness of the employer’s overtime and meal and rest period practices could be determined on a class basis.

The court also found that Brinker did not present a bar to class certification on the plaintiffs’ meal and rest break claims. The plaintiffs alleged that the trial evidence showed the employer did not have a meal and rest period policy, employees were not advised of their right to take meal and rest periods, and the employer discouraged employees from taking breaks except to use the rest room. The court found this evidence demonstrated that class certification was appropriate as to the plaintiffs’ meal and rest claims, even after Brinker.

It may be argued that the district court’s decision in Wang should be limited to its very specific and individualized procedural history and fact pattern, including the extensive summary judgment and trial records and findings. Employers should nevertheless be aware of the more general aspects of the decision, such as the court’s decision regarding the employer’s meal and rest break policy, which is consistent with some other recent California state court decisions.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Littler | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Littler
Contact
more
less

Littler on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!