Employers Win Some, Lose Some, in California Cases Started Prior to Dukes

by BakerHostetler

Despite blockbuster cases like Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), and Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court, 273 P.3d 513, 527 (Cal. 2012), California remains a hotbed of employment class litigation as a recent spate of cases reflects. The Dukes case and others have certainly helped to level the playing field for employers. Before those cases were decided, however, plaintiffs had filed many employment class actions in California, and even two years later courts are still working to resolve them.

We’ll start with the best for employers. In Santiago v. Amdocs, Inc., Case No. 3:10-cv-04317-SI (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2013), the plaintiffs were tech workers employed in a variety of IT roles who claimed that they were improperly classified as exempt. The district court conditionally certified the class under the FLSA, but, following discovery, the defendant moved to decertify the class and the plaintiffs moved to certify a Rule 23 class under California law and to narrow their FLSA class to exclude certain groups of employees. The district court, noting the variety of roles held by the putative class members, decertified the FLSA class and also denied the plaintiffs’ motion for certification as to the state law claims.

Similarly, in Till v. Saks Inc., Case No. C 11-00504 SBA (N.D. Cal. September 30, 2013), the same court on the same day addressed the claims of misclassification of a group of Saks department and assistant managers. The plaintiffs moved to certify the class and the defendant filed a preemptive motion to deny certification under the FLSA. The court found, under Dukes, that the experiences of the managers were too disparate to justify certification under either Rule 23(a) or 23(b)(3) and denied certification of the state law class. For the same reasons, the court granted the defendant’s motion to deny certification of the FLSA class. Three years ago, one decision like this from this court would have been unusual, let alone two.

In Rai v. CVS Caremark Pharmacy Corp., Case No. CV 12-08717-JGB (VBKx) (C.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2013), the plaintiffs brought suit against the CVS pharmacy chain based on alleged violations of California’s meal and rest break requirements on behalf of a class of assistant managers and supervisors. This is, incidentally, the only case of this group that was filed after the Dukes decision was reached, but was originally filed in state court and removed to federal court. The plaintiffs moved to certify the class. Interestingly, the court first addressed the issue whether the class was even ascertainable because the duties that allegedly sparked the claimed violations, such as “key carrier” responsibilities, were not uniformly distributed among the putative class members. Although troubled by the difficult class definition, the court found that commonality was met, but ultimately decided that the plaintiffs could not meet Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance and superiority requirements. The Rai case ended up a victory for the employer, but the case is noteworthy because of the class definition issues and because the court, more reminiscent of pre-Dukes opinions, resolved the matter under Rule 23(b)(3).

The Ninth Circuit, too, has been addressing employment class action claims. In Abdullah v. U.S. Security Associates, Inc, Case No. 11-55653 (9th Cir. Sept. 27, 2013), the plaintiffs were security officers working in California who claimed that they were denied rest and meal periods under that state’s law. The majority of the putative class members worked alone, and the employer sought to take advantage of an exception to the rest and meal period rules relating to the “nature of the work” being performed. The district court granted certification of the class and the Ninth Circuit found that it did not abuse its discretion in doing so. The employer was likely hurt by testimony from a company executive (testimony it later tried to retract) to the effect that over 99% of the class members worked under similar conditions. The Abdullah thus is not a bad case in the sense of a court overreaching to create a class but, rather, a reflection that Dukes permits certification of a class on the right facts.

Leaving what might be the worst case for last, the case of Wang v. Chinese Daily News, has been pending since 2004, has been tried, and has been appealed multiple times. The underlying case involves claimed wage and hour violations under both the FLSA and California state law. Years ago, the plaintiffs won a substantial jury verdict, later expanded by the district court, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Wang v. Chinese Daily News, 623 F.3d 743 (9th Cir. 2010). The Supreme Court, however, reversed and remanded the case in the wake of the Dukes decision. The Ninth Circuit, in turn, remanded to the district court, but the case remains unresolved. Last March, the Ninth Circuit again remanded the case for consideration of whether the class meets Dukes standards. Wang v. Chinese Daily News, 709 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2013). Last month, the Ninth Circuit denied en banc review of that order, but issued a slightly modified opinion that still directed a remand and consideration of the class issues under Dukes (9th Cir., Sept. 3 2013). While the decision was a win of sorts for the employer, the Wang case is now 9 years old, with no end in sight.

The Bottom Line: The Dukes decision is, however reluctantly, taking hold in the Ninth Circuit in employment cases, but class action litigation remains a genuine threat and such claims may take substantial time and resources even if the employer ultimately prevails.


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.

© BakerHostetler | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


BakerHostetler 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):

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.


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.