Category: Class Certification Motions

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Nathan N. Norimoto, Nick Baltaxe

Duane Morris Takeaways: On January 17, 2024, in Anders, et al. v. California State University Fresno, et al., No. 23-15265, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1063 (9th Cir. Jan. 17, 2024), the Ninth Circuit vacated the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California’s decision to deny Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class certification.  Specifically, the Ninth Circuit held that the District Court erred by finding the named plaintiffs would not be adequate class representatives due a “speculative” conflict of interest that could develop at the remedy stage of the litigation.  The Ninth Circuit remanded the action to the District Court for further proceedings.  The ruling is required reading on the procedural aspects of class certification in discrimination cases in general, and with respect to how actual or perceived conflicts on interest in particular implicate the Rule 23 (a)(4) analysis.

Case Background

Plaintiffs Taylor Anders, Hennessey Evans, Abbigayle Roberts, Megan Walaitis, Tara Weir, and Courtney Walburger were all former members of the California State University, Fresno (“Fresno State”) women’s lacrosse team.  Id. at *2.  Plaintiffs brought class claims alleging effective accommodation and equal treatment under Title IX.  Id.  Plaintiffs sought an injunction that would prohibit Fresno State “from eliminating Fresno State’s women’s lacrosse team (or any other women’s varsity intercollegiate athletic opportunities at Fresno State) unless and until Fresno State is and will be in compliance with Title IX.”  Id. at *5, fn. 4.

Plaintiffs “sought certification of classes consisting of current and future female students at Fresno State who have participated in or are able and ready to participate in women’s varsity intercollegiate athletics at Fresno State.”  Id. at *3.  The District Court denied Plaintiffs’ class certification motion in its entirety on the basis that the Plaintiffs were not adequate class representatives under Rule 23(a)(4), as their affiliation and contentions favored the women’s lacrosse team over other women’s varsity sports.  Id.  Plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit’s Ruling

The Ninth Circuit vacated the District Court’s decision to deny class certification of the effective accommodation and equal treatment claims.  Id. at *6. 

First, the Ninth Circuit noted that to defeat adequacy under Rule 23(a)(4), any conflict of interest between the named Plaintiffs and the putative class members must be “actual” and not “speculative,” which only exists if the remedy sought precludes “structural assurance of fair and adequate representation for the diverse groups and individuals affected.”  Id. at *4.

With respect to Plaintiffs’ effective accommodation claim, the Ninth Circuit opined that the District Court erred in finding Plaintiffs would not be adequate class representatives due to a “conflict of interest with members of their proposed class” because the District Court only “speculat[ed] as to conflicts that may develop at the remedy stage.”  Id.  For example, if Fresno State “reinstate[s] at least one women’s sports team,” the Ninth Circuit reasoned that it was only speculation that “plaintiffs would be able to advocate for the reinstatement of the women’s lacrosse team at the expense of other women’s teams.”  Id. at *4-*5.  At the remedies stage, however, the Ninth Circuit determined that Fresno State “can comply with Title IX without reinstating women’s sports teams by leveling down programs instead of ratcheting them up to achieve substantial proportionality between male and female athletics opportunities.”  Id. at *5 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).  Further, the Ninth Circuit pointed out that if Fresno State reinstates women’s sports teams at the remedies stage, the District Court did not identify any “evidence suggesting plaintiffs would have input into which teams are to be reinstated.”  Id.

In addition, the Ninth Circuit held that the District Court erred by failing to “independently analyze the equal treatment claim,” and evaluate whether a conflict of interest exists with the respect to the claim.  Id. at *5.  The Ninth Circuit directed the District Court to analyze the Plaintiffs’ equal treatment claim in light of the “conclusion that the injunctive relief Plaintiffs seek under their effective accommodation claim does not necessarily require reinstatement of the women’s lacrosse team” and to “specifically assess whether a conflict exists under the equal treatment claim.”  Id. at *5-*6.

In conclusion, the Ninth Circuit vacated the denial of class certification and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings on the class certification issue.  Id. at *6.

Key Takeaways

The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Anders makes it easier for plaintiffs to certify a class in the Title IX context by messaging that challenges to the adequacy of a class representative in a Title IX lawsuit must be based on an actual conflict of interest.  Importantly, any challenges to class certification based on the fairness of a potential remedy will likely fail as too “speculative.”  Any entity that must comply with Title IX, and finds itself the potential victim of a class action based on Title IX, should keep this distinction in mind.

 

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Nick Baltaxe, and Nathan K. Norimoto

Duane Morris Takeaways: In O’Hailpin v. Hawaiian Airlines Inc., No. 22-CV-00532, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220734 (D. Haw. Dec. 12, 2023), Judge Jill Otake of the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii denied a motion for class certification brought by current and former employees of Hawaiian Airlines alleging discrimination under Title VII and the ADA against individuals who requested medical or religious accommodations from their employers’ COVID-19 vaccination policy. The decision is pro-defendant and well worth a read in terms of strategies to oppose and prevent class certification of employment discrimination claims.

Case Background

Riki O’Hailpin, along with eight other named plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”), brought a putative class action against Defendant Hawaiian Airlines Inc. (“Hawaiian”), alleging that Hawaiian violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) by discriminating against employees who requested medical or religious accommodations from Hawaiian’s Covid-19 vaccination policy.  In response to the Covid-19 pandemic, President Biden issued Executive Order No. 14042, a Federal Contractor Mandate that required certain employers to implement a mandatory vaccination policy.  Under the Federal Contractor Mandate and related guidelines, Hawaiian was required to have its unvaccinated employees masked and socially distanced in the workplace; thus, any exemptions to the vaccine policy would need to comply with those masking and distancing requirements.  Id. at *3.  Plaintiffs challenged Hawaiian’s policy that required all employees “to be vaccinated November 1, 2021 unless they had a reasonable accommodation for a disability as defined under the ADA or a sincerely held religious belief that conflicted with their ability to receive a Covid-19 vaccine.”  Id. at *3-4.

Hawaiian received 568 reasonable accommodation requests related to the vaccine policy, including 496 for religious accommodations and 72 for medical exemptions.  Id. at *3.  Hawaiian subsequently examined every work position and every work location to determine whether masking and distancing were feasible and concluded that, for a majority of the positions, they were not.  Hawaiian also implemented a “Transition Period Testing Program” that provided a deadline for unvaccinated employees to test and a 12-month unpaid leave of absence for those who did not get vaccinated and were not granted an accommodation.  Id. at *6.  The complaint alleged Hawaiian engaged in a “pattern and practice of discrimination” under Title VII and the ADA by denying medical and religious accommodation requests and that the Transition Period Testing Program was a pretext for denying accommodation requests.  Id. at *17.  Plaintiffs sought to represent all current and former Hawaiian employees whose religious and medical vaccine accommodation requests were denied under Hawaiian’s vaccination policy, and proposed a primary class of the approximately 500 employees whose accommodation requests were denied as well as sub-classes, broken down by medical and religious requests, of individuals whose requests were either denied or rescinded by Hawaiian.  Id. at *9.  Plaintiffs moved for class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Id.

Plaintiffs’ Motion For Class Certification

The Court evaluated Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification under Rule 23’s requirements of numerosity, adequacy, predominance, typicality, and commonality.  First, it expressed skepticism that one of Plaintiffs’ proposed sub-classes satisfied the numerosity requirement.  Id. at *12-13.  The Court concluded that certification of a sub-class of 14 individuals “whose medical exemption requests were rescinded, such that no final decision was reached … could likely be denied based on numerosity grounds alone.”  Id. at *13.  At the same time, the Court determined that Plaintiffs satisfied Rule 23’s adequacy of counsel requirement.  Id. at *13-14.  Hawaiian did not contest the requirement with respect to the named Plaintiffs and their counsel.  Id.  at *14.

The Court further evaluated whether Plaintiffs’ “pattern and practice” theory of liability met Rule 23’s commonality, typicality, and predominance requirements, with a specific focus on issues susceptible to “generalized proof” versus “individualized proof.”  Id. at *20-21.  The Court found that Plaintiffs could not satisfy the remaining Rule 23 requirements due to the individualized assessments into each medical and religious accommodation request to determine whether Hawaiian’s treatment of each request constituted actionable discrimination under Title VII and the ADA.  Id. at *23-57.

With respect to the sub-classes of individuals who were denied religious accommodation requests, the Court noted that the inquiries into each employee’s “sincerely held religious belief and secular preference” and/or whether the accommodation would cause an “undue hardship” to Hawaiian would require too many individualized assessments to satisfy predominance under Rule 23.  Id. at *27–*42.  For example, the Court noted the analysis of whether the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on Hawaiian would include an individualized review of each position, location, union status, and the ability to mask and social distance.  Id. at *37-39.

For the medical accommodation sub-classes, the Court noted that the ADA extends “only to qualified individuals … who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.”  Id. at *44 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8)).  For this reason, the Court opined that the reasonableness of the accommodation “is necessarily individualized, based on the person’s position and location, and the extent to which an accommodation would amount to an undue hardship on Hawaiian.”  Id. at *52.  In light of the individualized inquiries to determine the reasonableness of each accommodation (masking, social distancing, or testing) for each qualified individual, the Court determined that Plaintiffs did not meet their “burden to explain why commonality, typicality, and predominance are met” for the ADA subclasses.  Id. at *55-56.

Accordingly, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and held that a class action was not “the superior way” for Plaintiffs’ claims to proceed.  Id. at *56.

Implications For Employers

This decision represents a helpful roadmap for employers to defend not only against potential Covid-19 vaccine-related class action complaints, but also against putative class actions brought under Title VII and the ADA.  The Court’s ruling underscores the importance of individualized inquiries for religious and medical accommodation requests under Title VII and the ADA, and offers tools to defend against the plaintiff’s burden of demonstrating predominance, typicality, and commonality at the class certification stage of the litigation.

By Seth A. Goldberg and Nick Baltaxe

Duane Morris Takeaways: A California Superior Court recently granted class certification relative to a class of hundreds of employees against a group of dispensary defendants where the Plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence that the off-the-clock work claims, meal and rest period claims, and reimbursement of necessary business expenses claims predominated over individual inquiries and were typical of the class.  The Court did not rule on the merits of the integrated enterprise, alter ego, or joint employer arguments, nor did the Court agree with the Defendant’s arguments that the claims were not typical because the Plaintiffs were not employed by each Defendant. Nonetheless, the ruling is important for employers in general and cannabis dispensaries in particular.

Case Background and the Court’s Ruling

A group of dispensary and retail store employees at four different dispensaries owned by different entities asserted that they should be treated as a single enterprise. The Plaintiffs moved to certify a class of all current and former non-exempt, hourly employees of the Defendants from January 13, 2017 through the present. The Plaintiffs alleged that the putative class members were expected to work off-the-clock in order to set up their timekeeping program and their payroll program as well as review materials on the timekeeping program, before clocking-in on their personal cell phone. The Plaintiffs additionally contended that the Defendants failed to provide meal and rest periods, timely pay all wages on termination, or provide accurate itemized wage statements. The Plaintiffs also argued that because the four Defendants should be considered a single enterprise, they failed to comply with the higher minimum wage found in the City of Los Angeles Minimum Wage Ordinance.

The Court granted the Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.  The Court noted that the Plaintiffs’ arguments  regarding the Defendants being an integrated enterprise could be established by common proof. At the class certification stage, the Court determined that the Defendants’ arguments went to the merits of the Plaintiffs’ claims and did not compel denial of the Plaintiffs’ motion.  The Court found that each of the Plaintiffs’ class claims were subject to common proof, that the Plaintiffs’ injuries were typical of the class, and that the Plaintiffs and their counsel were adequate to serve as class representative and class counsel.  Importantly, the Court reached this conclusion despite Defendants’ introduction of compliant policies and procedures relating to these wage & hour claims.

Key Takeaways

There are thousands of state-licensed cannabis operators in California, a state known for its ubiquitious wage & hour litigation, and thousands more across the 38 states in the US that have legalized cannabis for medical and/or adult-use purposes.  As the cannabis industry continues to mature and evolve, wage & hour class actions are likely to become more frequent in the cannabis industry, just as they have grown in other industries.  It is crucial that employers ensure that they follow federal and state wage & hour laws and provide their employees with complaint policies and procedures.  Arbitration agreements with class waivers also should be provided to each employee in states where applicable.  This becomes even more crucial in the cannabis space, where brands are expanding due to a high volume of M&A transactions and market consolidation.  Cannabis companies should continue to be cognizant of the strict wage & hour regulations in their states as the industry continues to grow.

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Emilee N. Crowther

Duane Morris Takeaways: In the proceeding captioned In Re Marriott International Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 8:19-MD-02879, 2023 WL 8247865 (D. Md. Nov. 29, 2023), Judge John Preston Bailey of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification and reinstated several previously-certified classes.  The defendant argued that class certification was improper, in part, because the putative class members signed a Choice of Law Provision that contained a class action waiver.  Conversely, the plaintiffs contended that the defendant waived its defense based on the Choice of Law Provision.  The Court held that (i) the defendant waived its Choice of Law Provision, and (ii) in the absence of an arbitration agreement, the Choice of Law Provision did not override the Rule 23 requirements.  For these reasons, this case serves as an important reminder for companies on the importance of the terms of contractual agreements in the context of seeking to arbitrate cases and potentially avoid class or collective actions.

Case Background

In 2016, Marriott purchased Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide (“Starwood”), and inherited Starwood’s IT infrastructure provided by Accenture LLP (“Accenture”) for all Starwood properties.  Id.  In September 2018, Marriott learned that an unidentified party tried to gain access to the Starwood guest reservation database.  After an investigation, Marriott determined Starwood’s database was compromised from July 2014 through September 2018.  Id. *1.  On November 30, 2018, Marriott disclosed the data breach.  Id.

Thereafter, affected consumers filed suit against Marriott and Accenture nationwide.  Id.  Marriott requested that the actions be consolidated into one multi-district litigation (“MDL”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, where Marriott is headquartered.  Id. * 4.  The case was consolidated, and the plaintiffs filed their joint MDL Complaint alleging various state law contract, statutory consumer protection, and state law negligence claims.  Id.  The plaintiffs then moved to certify various classes.  Id. *2.

The putative class included members of the Starwood Preferred Guest Program (“SPG”).  Id. *2.  Members of the SPG program signed a contract that contained a “Choice of Law and Venue” Provision (the “Choice of Law Provision”).  Id.  The Choice of Law Provision stated that any disputes related to the SPG program would “be handled individually without any class action” and would have exclusive jurisdiction in the State of New York.  Id.  Therefore, the defendant asserted that Rule 23(a)’s “typicality” requirement was not met because the class members were SPG program members, and the class contained both members and non-members of the SPG program.  Id.

The District Court agreed with the defendant, and redefined all classes to include only SPG members.  Id. *3.  However, by doing so, every putative class member was “someone who had purportedly given up the right to engaged in just such class litigation.”  In Re Marriott Int’l, Inc., 78 F.4th 677, 682-83 (4th Cir. 2023).  The District Court “did not further consider the import of the class waiver on its certification decision,” id. at 683, and granted certification as to three of the plaintiffs’ Rule 23(b)(3) and four Rule 23(c)(4) damages classes.  In Re Marriott Int’l, Inc., 341 F.R.D 128, 172-73 (D. Md. 2022).  Subsequently, the defendants appealed.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit held that the District Court erred in failing to address whether or not the SPG members agreed to bar the certification of a class action.  In Re Marriott International, 2023 WL 8247865, at *3.  The Fourth Circuit vacated the class certification and remanded to the District Court to consider the effect of the Choice of Law Provision on the class.  Id.

The District Court’s Decision

The District Court concluded that (i) the defendants waived the Choice of Law Provision, and (ii) absent an arbitration agreement, Rules 23 and 42 prevailed over the parties’ Choice of Law Provision Id. Accordingly, the District Court reinstated the previously-certified classes.

First, the District Court analyzed the plaintiff’s position that the defendants waived the Choice of Law Provision.  It opined that “[w]aiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.”  United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993) (internal citations omitted).  The District Court reasoned that a party “waives a contractual provision when the party takes actions that are inconsistent with the provision.” In Re Marriott International, 2023 WL 8247865, at *4.  The District Court held the defense “clearly waived 5/6” of its Choice of Law Provision because the defendants: (1) requested consolidation into an MDL, which “is the antithesis of handling each claim on an individual basis”; (2) stated that “separately litigating each of the 59 related actions” would “offer no benefit” and heighten the burdens of all involved; and (3) stated venue was proper in Maryland and requested that the MDL be assigned to Maryland, which was inconsistent with the New York Choice of Law Provision.  Id.  As such, the District Court found that the defendants waived the Choice of Law Provision and all terms contained therein.  Id.

Second, the District Court held that it was not required to enforce the Choice of Law Provision outside of a binding arbitration provision.  Id. *8.  The Choice of Law Provision was “patently distinguishable” from “all of the reported cases on contractual class action waivers” because it did not have a mandatory arbitration clause.  Id. *7.  When parties agree to resolve their case in a non-judicial forum such as arbitration, “the Federal Rules have limited applicability”.  Id. *6. However, in the absence of such an agreement, the District Court opined that “[t]he parties cannot by agreement dictate that a district court must ignore the provisions of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”  Id. *7.  The District Court found that Rule 23 and Rule 42 do not “call for consideration of the parties’ preferences,” but rather “furtherance of efficient judicial administration.”  Id.  Thus, the District Court was not required to enforce the Choice of Law Provision, and held that the plaintiffs did not waive their right to bring a class action claim.  Id. *8 *(quoting Martrano v. Quizno’s Franchise Co., 2009 WL 1704469, at *20-21 (W.D. Pa. June 15, 2009)).

Implications For Companies

Companies should proactively review their arbitration agreements and class or collective action waivers to ensure that contractually agreed-upon terms can and will be imposed by a court.  Additionally, when faced with multiple nationwide claims, companies should analyze their case defense strategy and make an informed decision before filing and/or joining an MDL.  Finally, as part of any acquisition, companies should have their own data security team thoroughly vet and approve the acquired company’s security infrastructure prior to, or shortly after, the acquisition.

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Katelynn Gray, and Gregory S. Slotnick 

Duane Morris Takeaways:  Lack of adequacy of the named plaintiff in a class action can result in the denial of Rule 23 class certification in appropriate circumstances.  In Cheng, et al. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., No. 20-CV-01551, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161453 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2023), the plaintiff filed a class action against the defendant alleging breach of contract and violation of § 349 of the New York General Business Law.  The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23, and the court denied the motion on the basis of the bank’s strong defense to the plaintiff’s individual claims, which was was likely to impede the claims of other class members – even though the class members were not subject to the same defense.  Employers in New York defending Rule 23 class actions should carefully consider the court’s reasoning and finding that plaintiff was an inadequate representative of his sought-after class.  As shown in Cheng, potential defenses to a named plaintiff’s individual claims may be sufficient to defeat class certification.  

Case Background

In Cheng, the plaintiff asserted that defendant HSBC Bank USA, N.A. (“HSBC” or “the bank”) failed to apply interest to plaintiff’s bank savings account deposits in a timely manner.  After the plaintiff made a deposit with the bank on May 31, 2019, he alleged HSBC did not apply any interest on the account until June 4, 2019, four days after the deposit.  Plaintiff claimed the bank also delayed applying interest on another deposit made on November 26, 2019 until November 29, 2019.  In November and December 2019, the plaintiff made phone calls to HSBC to address the alleged delays in crediting interest to his deposits.  Id. at *2.  The bank responded that its policy was to not credit interest on account deposits until 3 to 5 business days after they were made.  In the 2019 phone calls, the plaintiff indicated that he understood interest could not accrue until the bank had his “money on hand,” and that his concern was that the bank was failing to post the funds and initiate interest accrual upon receipt of those funds, despite the fact that it already had the “money on hand.”  Id. at *3.  In one of the 2019 phone calls, when a bank representative explained that plaintiff should have received an email indicating his deposit needed to pass through a clearing process before HSBC could post it to his account (and presumably, begin interest accrual), plaintiff responded, “I don’t care about the email…I look at when is my money withdraw[n] from other bank, when is the money posted to my HSBC account, okay?  Don’t tell me HSBC takes five days to post the money after you receive it.”  Id. at *4.

In plaintiff’s lawsuit, brought on behalf of himself and a prospective class of customers, plaintiff claimed HSBC was obligated to credit interest to his account on the day he initiated the deposit or transfer, rather than when the bank actually received the money.  Plaintiff contended the class consisted of at least 100 members and the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million.  Id. at *5.  At his deposition, plaintiff attempted to contextualize the 2019 phone calls, but admitted that he had read HSBC’s Terms and Charges Disclosures (“Disclosures”) when opening his account.  The Disclosures stated that “[i]nterest begins to accrue on the Business Day you deposit noncash items.”  Noncash items are instruments like checks and wire transfers.  Id. at *1-2.

Although the court previously had denied the bank’s motion for summary judgment on the claims by drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor, it expressed in that decision its view that the 2019 phone calls “strongly suggested” plaintiff shared HSBC’s understanding that the “you deposit” language in the Disclosures meant interest would begin to accrue once HSBC had cleared funds on hand, not when he initiated the deposit.  Id. at *6.  The court also opined that in the calls, plaintiff appeared to recognize HSBC could not apply interest until it was in receipt of his funds, and plaintiff told the bank multiple times that if the delay in accruing interest was due to a delay in receiving the funds, “that’s perfect” and “that’s fine.”  Id.

The Court’s Opinion Denying Class Certification

In its decision denying class certification under Rule 23, the court set forth Rule 23’s threshold requirements for class certification – numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy – and confirmed plaintiff bears the burden of establishing each element.  Id. at *8.  The court pointed specifically to the adequacy requirement of Rule 23(a)(4), which focuses on the fitness of purported class representative to competently litigate the case on behalf of absent class members, and reiterated that the interests of the named plaintiff cannot be antagonistic to those of the rest of the class.  Id.

The court found that plaintiff faced “serious obstacles to recovery on his individual claims,” and that plaintiff’s statements made in the 2019 phone calls were compelling evidence he understood that he would not begin accruing interest until the bank had his cash on hand.  Id. at *10.  The court reasoned that in his class certification motion, plaintiff now alleged that the bank misled him to believe that interest would begin accruing as soon as he initiated a deposit, which was contradicted by the statements made by plaintiff in the 2019 phone calls.  The court determined that the 2019 phone calls, plaintiff’s conflicting allegations about whether he read the Disclosures, and his prior relevant litigation and banking history were all likely to weaken his claims, and that there was a strong argument that plaintiff “knew precisely what he was doing and that he and HSBC shared the same understanding about what the key term ‘you deposit’ meant.”  Id. at *11.

As a result, the court determined that the plaintiff could not be an adequate representative of the class he sought to represent because he acknowledged in the 2019 phone calls that he understood the key terms of the bank’s policies.  The court opined there was a strong argument that the plaintiff understood the defendant’s terms, but was attempting to represent a class based on the bank’s alleged misconduct.  Id. at *10-11.  The court ruled that it was “not comfortable” making plaintiff the representative of all other class members’ claims and allowing him to bind hundreds of absent class members to plaintiff’s story, conditioning their recovery on how well plaintiff’s story held up.  Id. at *12.  For these reasons, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for class certification under Rule 23(a)(4).

Implications For Employers

The court’s decision denying class certification based on its finding that plaintiff failed to meet Rule 23’s adequacy threshold requirement is a potentially helpful roadmap for employers facing class action claims.  The court’s analysis centered on an individualized determination of plaintiff’s particular factual background in ultimately holding it was uncomfortable the plaintiff could adequately represent hundreds of absent class members based on his own contradictory and inconsistent testimony and evidence.  Businesses defending class actions should consider each named plaintiff’s individual circumstances and factual background for issues that could preclude their ability to adequately represent class members.  The decision confirms that in the appropriate circumstances, courts will not hesitate to deny class certification to named plaintiffs on such grounds.

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Sean P. McConnell

Duane Morris Takeaways: On November 3, 2023, Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California granted a motion by Plaintiffs – a group of former, current and future student athletes – for certification of three proposed damages classes under Rule 23(b)(3) in the litigation entitled In Re College Athlete NIL Litigation, No. 4:20-CV-03919 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2023). Judge Wilken certified three classes seeking to recover compensation for the commercial use of their names, images, and likenesses (“NIL”). This class certification order follows a September 22, 2023 order in the same case certifying a proposed injunctive relief class under Rule 23(b)(2). While defendants did not dispute certification of the proposed injunctive relief class, they argued that the damages classes should not have been certified because the NIL market is inherently too distinct for the thousands of impacted student-athletes to claim the same kind of harm from lost compensation. In certifying the three proposed damages classes, the order sets the stage for a possible class-wide trial for hundreds of millions or even billions in back pay for student athletes.

Case Background

Plaintiffs are student athletes who either have competed or will compete on a Division I team since June 15, 2020. Defendants are the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) and the “Power Five” Conferences – the Pac-12 Conference, Big Ten Conference, Big 12 Conference, Southeastern Conference, and Athletic Coast Conference. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants set and enforced a set of rules to restrict the compensation that student-athletes can receive in exchange for the commercial use of student-athletes’ NIL and prohibit NCAA member conferences and schools form sharing with student athletes the revenue they receive from third parties for the commercial use of student-athletes’ NIL. Even though Defendants had suspended enforcement of some of these rules, they have not suspended enforcement of rules that prohibit NIL compensation contingent upon athletic participation or performances or enrollment at a particular school, including, most notably, compensation for lucrative broadcast deals that pay conferences hundreds of millions of dollars. Plaintiffs’ complaint includes claims for Sherman Act Section 1 violations for conspiracy to fix prices and group boycott or refusal to deal as well as a claim for unjust enrichment.

Plaintiffs moved for class certification of their claims under § 1 of the Sherman Act only.

The Court’s Certification Order

The decision at issue deals only with Plaintiffs’ motion for certification of three proposed damages classes under Rule 23(b)(3). The proposed classes are (i) current and former Division I men’s basketball players and FBS football players; (ii) current and former Division I women’s basketball players; and (iii) current and former Division 1 athletes that did not play Division I basketball or FBS football. Plaintiffs’ alleged damages fall into three different buckets, including: (1) broadcast TV NIL damages, which arise out of student-athletes having been deprived of compensation they would have received from conferences for use of their NIL in broadcasts of FBS football or Division I basketball games in the absence of the challenged restrictions; (2) video game damages, which arise out of student-athletes having been deprived of compensation they would have received from video game publishers for use of their NIL; and (3) third-party NIL damages suffered between 2016 and July 1, 2021 when the NCAA started to allow some NIL compensation for student athletes.

Defendants argued that the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) was not met because common proof cannot establish antitrust damages on a class-wide basis due to intra-class conflicts that exist among class members in each class as a result of Plaintiffs’ methodology for calculating damages. The Court disagreed. Relying largely on the opinions of Plaintiffs’ experts, the Court concluded that every class member suffered injury as a result of the NCAA’s rules, and that every class member will be entitled to receive a piece of the damages pie.

Implications For Organizations

The Court’s ruling is important to the ongoing debate over student athletes’ compensation. Thus far, NCAA-member schools cannot directly compensate their athletes for NIL. By certifying the damages classes proposed by Plaintiffs, the Court’s decision is likely to advance the ball on this issue.

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Emilee N. Crowther

Duane Morris Takeaways: In Sgouros v. Transunion Corp., No. 1:14-CV-01850, 2023 WL 6690474 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 12, 2023), Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Plaintiff’s motion for class certification in a Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) case because Plaintiff failed to satisfy the Rule 23 requirements of commonality, adequacy of representation, and predominance. For entities facing FCRA class actions, this decision provides a concise explanation of what factors courts may consider with respect to commonality, adequacy of representation, and predominance in ruling on a motion for class certification.

Case Background

In this litigation, Defendants are collectively a well-known American consumer credit reporting agency.  In 2013, Defendants offered a 3-in-1 Credit Report, Credit Score & Debt Analysis for consumers to purchase. The 3-in-1 report included a VantageScore, which, similar to a FICO score, looks at the information in a consumer’s credit report and generates a score to help lenders determine a consumer’s creditworthiness.

On June 10, 2013, Plaintiff purchased a 3-in-1 Credit Report and VantageScore from Defendants.  Id. at 1.  On the same day he purchased the report, Plaintiff alleged he was denied his desired auto loan because “the credit score the lender was provided was more than 100 points lower than the number contained in the VantageScore [Plaintiff] purchased.”  Id.

Plaintiff later testified he knew the VantageScore was “useless” in September 2012, and failed to provide an explanation as to why he purchased a VantageScore nine months after such realization.  Id.  Plaintiff also testified that, contrary to the allegations in his complaint, he did not buy the score in advance of his search for an auto loan, and “he did not read the TransUnion website content that accompanied the purchase of his VantageScore.”  Id.

In 2014, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants alleging violations the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (“MMPA”).  Id.  Plaintiff sought to represent a nationwide class and a Missouri-based class consisting of all persons “who purchased a VantageScore 1.0 Score through TransUnion Interactive’s website, or its predecessor website, during the period October 1, 2009, to September 1, 2015.”  Id.

The Court’s Decision

The Court held that Plaintiff failed to establish commonality, adequacy of representation, and predominance for both the FCRA and MMPA claims under Rule 23(a) and (b), and denied class certification. Id. at 6.

Rule 23(a)(2) – Commonality

Plaintiffs must demonstrate that “there are questions of law or fact common to the class” to meet the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2).  Id. at 3.  Importantly, Plaintiff is required to “demonstrate that the class members ‘have suffered the same injury,’” and that the claims are “capable of classwide resolution.”  Id. (citing Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011)).   Plaintiff asserted five questions to establish commonality.  Id.  Overall, the Court found Plaintiff’s commonality questions were insufficient because they “merely restate[d] the core elements of statutory violations” and did not demonstrate “to what extent the class members suffered a common injury.”  Id.

Specifically as to the alleged FCRA violations, the “core liability dispute” was whether or not Defendants failed to supply the class “with a credit score . . . that assist[ed] the consumer in understanding the credit scoring assessment of the credit behavior of the consumer and predictions about the future credit behavior of the consumer.”  Id. at 2.  Plaintiff asserted that the VantageScore could not assist consumers in understanding their credit score assessment “because the VantageScore was not similar enough to a FICO score and or widely used by lenders.”  Id. at 4.  The Court disagreed. It held that because Plaintiff failed to present any argument or evidence “independent of a comparison to a FICO score,” Plaintiff’s common questions were not “capable of common answers,” and Rule 23(a)’s commonality requirement was not met.  Id.

Similarly, “[b]ecause [Plaintiff’s] MMPA common question . . . [was] premised on the same logic as the FCRA claim,” the Court found that “commonality was not met.”  Id.

Rule 23(a)(4) – Adequacy of Representation

A named plaintiff must also establish they can adequately serve as a class representative under Rule 23(a)(4).  Id.  A named plaintiff is inadequate if they “have serious credibility problems” or if they have “antagonistic of conflicting” interests to absent class members.  Id.  The Court held that Plaintiff was inadequate to represent the class on both the FCRA and MMPA claims due to Plaintiff’s questionable credibility and the inconsistencies in his deposition testimony.  Id. at 4-5.

Rule 23(b)(3) – Predominance

The plaintiff must also demonstrate that the putative class claims “predominate over any questions affecting only individual members,” and are “sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.”  Id. at 5.  The Court found that the FCRA’s statutory requirement of assisting a consumer in understanding their credit score is “necessarily individualized given the inherently personal nature how credit scores are calculated and consumers’ personal behaviors,” and predominance was not met.  Id.

Implications For Credit Reporting Companies

This ruling provides a straightforward analysis of what elements courts may find persuasive in ruling on a motion for class certification in an FCRA class action. It ought to be a required read for corporate counsel in any FCRA case.

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and George J. Schaller

Duane Morris Takeaways: In Gur-Ravantab, et al. v. Georgetown University, No. 1:22-CV-01038, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179493 (D.D.C. Oct. 5, 2023), Judge Trevor McFadden of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification on the grounds that the named Plaintiff was neither an adequate representative of the proposed class nor even a member of it.  

For companies facing motions for certification motions in class actions, this decision is instructive in terms of considerations over the circumstances where a named plaintiff may fall short of satisfying the adequacy requirement under 23(a)(4). 

Case Background

The named Plaintiff, Emir Gur-Ravanatab (“Plaintiff”), was a Class of 2020 graduate of Georgetown University.  Id. at 1.  In March 2020 of his final semester, the COVID-19 pandemic swept the nation.  Id. at 2.   Defendant, Georgetown University (“Defendant”), like many other schools, announced its transition to remote instruction for the rest of the Spring 2020 semester.  Id.

Plaintiff alleged that he entered a contract with the Defendant, and under that contract, Plaintiff paid tuition in exchange for a guarantee of “in-person classroom learning and other services.” Id. at 1-2.  Plaintiff alleged that there was a material difference in value between in-person and remote instruction. Therefore, despite Defendant’s transition to remote instruction, Plaintiff was never paid the difference.  Id. at 2.

Plaintiff alleged breach of an express and implied contract claims, and an unjust enrichment claim.  Id.  Plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages, and restitution for his claims.  Id.   He also moved to certify a class on behalf of other students who similarly formed contracts with Defendant and were enrolled as undergraduate students “during the Spring 2020 semester who paid tuition and Mandatory Fees.”  Id.  Plaintiff alleged the class covered roughly 7,300 other current and former university students.  Id.

The Court’s Decision

The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. It held that the named Plaintiff was not an adequate representative of the class he proposed to certify nor even a member of the class.  Id. at 1.

The Court reasoned the requirements of all class action suits are well-settled under Rule 23.  Id. at 3.  These requirements are known as “numerosity,” “commonality,” “typicality,” and “adequacy.”  Id. at 4.    Additionally, the Court relied on U.S. Supreme Court precedent that “has ‘repeatedly held’ that ‘a class representative must be a part of the class and possess the same interest and suffer the same injury as the class members.’”  Id.  After a plaintiff and his proposed class satisfy those requirements, then the plaintiff and the proposed class must fall within one of the three “buckets” of class actions enumerated under Rule 23(b).  Id. at 4-5.  The Court found Plaintiff “stumbled before reaching Rule 23(b)” as he was “both an inadequate representative of the proposed class, and a non-member” of it.  Id. at 5.

The Court focused its ruling on the adequacy prong under Rule 23(a).  The Court opined that “[Plaintiff] does not share the same interests as the other class members, and indeed, has a potential conflict of interest with them,” and therefore is “not an adequate class representative.”  Id. at 7.  Plaintiff suffered two problems, including: (i) Plaintiff’s mother is an employee of the university; and (ii) Plaintiff did not personally pay tuition or mandatory fees.  Id. at 7-8.  Therefore, the Court determined “he lack[ed] the kind of concrete stake in the outcome of th[e] litigation necessary to be the vigorous advocate the class is entitled to.”

As to potential class conflicts, Plaintiff’s mother was a Turkish language instructor with the university, and hence he had a close familial relationship to a person who may be harmed by a judgment against the university.  Id. at 8.  Further, Plaintiff testified in his deposition that his parents, including his mother “exert a ‘pretty major’ influence over his decisions.”  Id.  The Court reasoned that “Rule 23 requires that class representatives be able to engage in arm’s-length dealings with the opposing side” and Plaintiff did not meet that standard.  Id.  However, the Court acknowledged that this conflict on its own “would not be enough, standing on its own, to defeat adequacy,” but other problems persisted. Id.

Plaintiff’s second problem was he did not share the same interest in this case as the other class members.  Id.  Plaintiff “sued for a refund of the difference in value between the education he paid for and the one he got,” but Plaintiff “did not pay for an education at all.”  Id.  The Court considered Plaintiff’s student account as the operative measure for educational payments.  Id. at 8-11.

On balance, the Court construed the student account two ways. Either, Plaintiff did “not pay [Defendant] a dime,” Id. at 9, or Plaintiff “got more money out of [Defendant] that semester than he put in.”  Id. at 11.  Based on the Court’s reasoning, both accountings lead to the same problem, i.e., that Plaintiff “will likely have no compensatory damages to claim,” and “without compensatory damages, [Plaintiff] cannot claim punitive damages either.” Id.  Therefore, the Court held that Plaintiff could not obtain meaningful relief, and thus, “he lack[ed] ‘the incentive to represent the claims of the class vigorously.’”  Id.   As a result of Plaintiff owing no money towards tuition and Mandatory Fees, the Court found he “quite simply is not a member of the proposed class.”  Id. 

The Court further discussed the second named Plaintiff, Emily Lama, and her exclusion from the class as well because she was “enrolled as a graduate student during the Spring 2020 Semester,” meaning she also did not fit the undergraduate class description.  Id. at 11-12.

Accordingly, as there was no named Plaintiff to represent the class, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.  Id. at 12.  

Implications For Companies

Companies confronted with motions for class certification should take note that the court in Gur-Ravantab relied on Plaintiffs’ inability to adequately represent the class based on a fact intensive analysis that disqualified the named Plaintiff as a suitable class representative.  Further, from a practical standpoint, companies should carefully evaluate class representatives for unique characteristics that are distinguishable from the proposed class.

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Zachary J. McCormack, and Emilee N. Crowther

Duane Morris Takeaways: In Wade et al. v. JMJ Enterprises LLC, No. 1:21-CV-506 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 30, 2023), Judge Loretta C. Biggs of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina granted in part Plaintiff’s motion to certify a Rule 23 class involving North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (“NCWHA”) claims by certifying Plaintiffs’ claims for unpaid wages due for training, mandatory meetings, and improper reductions from employee time logs. In addition, Judge Biggs ruled that the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) preempted Plaintiff’s claim for failure to pay overtime wages under the NCWHA. In turn, Judge Biggs denied Defendants’ motion to decertify the FLSA collective action claims involving failure to pay overtime wages. This decision provides a good roadmap of the interplay in “hybrid wage & hour lawsuits” relative to the standards for certification of both class actions and collective actions.

Case Background

JMJ Enterprises LLC and owner Traci Johnson Martin (collectively “JMJ”) operate three group homes in Greensboro, North Carolina. The group homes assist children with mental illnesses or emotional disturbances, as well as adults suffering from mental illnesses and developmental issues. The Named Plaintiff, Tiffany Wade (“Ms. Wade”), was employed at Fresh Start Home for Children, one of the three group homes operated by JMJ from February 2021 to April 2021, and alleged she was not fully compensated for her time attending training sessions and mandatory meetings. Specifically, Wade alleged three claims under the FLSA, including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, and retaliation. Wade also brought two state law claims against JMJ under the NCWH for failure to pay wages due and failure to pay overtime wages. In her ruling, Judge Biggs issued an order in response to Wade’s motion to certify her class claims pursuant to Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and JMJ’s attempt to decertify Wade’s FLSA collective action.

The Court’s Order

State Law Claim Preempted By The FLSA 

Wade alleged two state law claims against her former employer under the NCWHA. In the first claim, Ms. Wade alleged JMJ failed to pay wages due pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-25.6 and § 95-25.7. Section 95-25.6 is commonly known as the “payday statute” and requires an employer to pay “all wages and tips accruing to the employee on the regular payday.” See Martinez-Hernandez v. Butterball, LLC, 578 F. Supp. 2d 816, 818, 821 (E.D.N.C. 2008). In the second state law claim, Wade alleged JMJ failed to pay overtime wages pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-25.4.

Judge Biggs concluded that Wade’s second state law claim, the overtime claim, was preempted by the FLSA. The Court reasoned that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-25.14 provided an exemption to employees covered under the FLSA. Although arising from the same facts, Wade’s wages due claim did not fall under any NCWHA exemption and was deemed sufficiently separate and distinct from her FLSA claims for minimum wage and overtime wages considering that her theory of liability did not invoke provisions of the FLSA.

Rule 23 Class Certification 

Considering Wade’s first state law claim, the wages due claim, the Court ruled that it was not preempted by the FLSA, Judge Biggs focused on whether Ms. Wade could meet her burden to certify a class involving similar NCWHA claims. Ms. Wade, as class representative, sought to establish a class of hourly, non-exempt employees who worked at JMJ with similar wage claims. The Court considered the four prerequisites established in Rule 23, including numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. Gunnells v. Healthplan Servs., Inc., 348 F.3d 417, 423 (4th Cir. 2003).

The Court agreed with Wade that nearly 100 class members rendered joinder impracticable, therefore satisfying the numerosity requirement. Judge Biggs ruled commonality was achieved through JMJ’s improper time recording and wage policies and practices, which determined compensation for class members. Even though each member had distinguishable circumstances, the Court opined that the heart of the claims was similar, and typicality was met. Regarding adequacy of representation, the Court looked at the resume of L. Michelle Gessner at Gessner Law, PLLC, who was appointed as class counsel. JMJ argued that she could not competently represent this class by pointing to Gessner’s extensive objections during Wade’s depositions (which JMJ contended demonstrated Gessner’s lack of sufficient understanding and control of the case). Judge Biggs rejected this defense position. Relying on Gessner’s 20 plus years of experience practicing labor and employment law, specifically complex wage and hour class and collective action cases, The Court held that she was adequate counsel for purposes of representing the class.

Defendants’ Motion To Decertify The FLSA Collective Action  

In order for this FLSA collective cction to proceed to trial, Judge Biggs applied a heightened standard to the “similarly situated” analysis. Wade argued that all employees making up the proposed collective action were paid based on a common policy, had similar roles at JMJ, and worked at one JMJ’s three group homes. The Court agreed that JMJ had common policies and practices with respect to training, mandatory meetings, overtime pay, and employee time logs, which applied to all employees and proved a common resolution of the FLSA claims was possible. Judge Biggs further determined there were sufficient similarities between the employees’ factual allegations and employment settings, and similar circumstances with regard to JMJ’s defenses. Judge Biggs therefore allowed the FLSA collective action to proceed.

Implications For Employers

The ruling in Wade details the burden employers must meet to decertify a FLSA collective action and also the burden for employees to certify a class action in the Fourth Circuit. This is yet another case which details the importance of employers’ obligations to abide by all record-keeping and paperwork requirements in their respective jurisdictions.

 

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Kathryn Brown

Duane Morris Takeaways: On September 27, 2023, District Court Judge Charles E. Fleming in Woods et al. v. First Transit, Inc., et al., 21-cv-739 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 27, 2023) denied plaintiffs’ motion for court-authorized notice of bus drivers’ claims of alleged unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  The district court applied the Sixth Circuit’s newly-minted standard to conclude the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a “strong likelihood” exists that they are similarly situated in relevant respects to other employees of the defendant transportation company.  The court’s rejection of the plaintiffs’ “self-serving declarations” and consideration of the defendants’ competing evidence illustrates how the Sixth Circuit’s new standard is a game changer for FLSA litigants in Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee and Kentucky.

Case Background

On April 6, 2021, three named plaintiffs filed a class and collective action lawsuit asserting claims of unpaid overtime in violation of the FLSA and Ohio, California and New York state laws.  The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant failed to pay overtime wages to fixed-route bus drivers for work performed before and after their shifts.  The plaintiffs also alleged the defendant deducted 30 minutes’ worth of time from their pay for unpaid meal breaks even when they did not receive uninterrupted break time.  After the district granted the defendant’s partial motion to dismiss the New York and California state law claims, only the Ohio state law claims survived.  Additionally, only two named plaintiffs remained after one of the named plaintiff s was shown never to have worked as a fixed-route bus driver.

Two individuals filed consents to join the lawsuit as opt-in plaintiffs in October 2021 and a third joined the lawsuit in February 2022.

After approximately six months of fact discovery solely on the issue of conditional certification, the named plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of their claims under the FLSA on June 29, 2022.  If granted, the plaintiffs would have authority to issue notice to a collective including any person who drove a fixed bus route for the defendant in any week during the prior three years.

In support of their motion, the plaintiffs submitted sworn declarations of the two named plaintiffs and three putative opt-in plaintiffs, job descriptions, an employee handbook and a user guide for time entry.  In opposition to the motion, the defendant submitted sworn declarations of managers at the locations at which the named or opt-in plaintiffs had worked, declarations of corporate human resources and payroll staff and collective bargaining agreements governing fixed-route bus drivers at various locations.

After the parties fully briefed the motion, the district court deferred ruling on the motion until the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its anticipated decision on the standard for conditional certification in FLSA cases.

On May 19, 2023, the Sixth Circuit in Clark v. A&L Homecare and Training Center, LLC, 68 F.4th 1003 (6th Cir. 2023), announced a new standard for determining whether FLSA plaintiffs may issue court-sanctioned notice to other employees.  Rejecting the prior standard in which a plaintiff need only make a “modest factual showing” to win court-authorized notice, the Sixth Circuit held that plaintiffs must put forth sufficient evidence to demonstrate a “strong likelihood” exists that they are similarly situated to other employees.  Factors relevant to the analysis include whether the potential other plaintiffs performed the same tasks and were subject to the same timekeeping and pay policies as the named plaintiffs.  After Clark, the parties submitted supplemental briefs arguing how the new standard applied to the plaintiffs’ pending motion.

The Court’s Decision

Upon weighing the parties’ competing evidence, the district court answered “no” to the question whether a strong likelihood exists that the named plaintiffs experienced the same policies of unpaid overtime wages as other employees of the defendant.

The district court concluded that the plaintiffs did not introduce any evidence of a “company-wide policy” binding on all fixed-route bus drivers that potentially violates the FLSA.  The court stated that the only evidence of the alleged unlawful overtime pay practices came in the form of “self-serving declarations” of doubtful credibility.  For example, an opt-in plaintiff declared that she worked as a fixed-route bus driver until December 2020.  However, the manager who oversaw the opt-in plaintiff’s location declared that no driver at that location drove a fixed bus route.  The court reasoned no “strong likelihood” exists that the opt-in plaintiff is similarly situated to the named plaintiffs given that the opt-in plaintiff could not be in the proposed collective of fixed-route bus drivers.

The court also considered the evidence of written policies regarding meal breaks, or the lack thereof, for fixed-route bus drivers.  Contrary to the plaintiffs’ allegation of company-wide automatic pay deductions for meal break time, the manager of the location at which one of the named plaintiffs had worked declared that drivers at that location did not even receive meal breaks.

The collective bargaining agreements in evidence showed that different locations of work had different policies governing time entry and breaks for fixed-route bus drivers.  For example, a collective bargaining agreement for one location stated that the defendant paid drivers for 15 minutes of time prior to their route to perform pre-shift work.  A collective bargaining agreement for another location said the defendant paid drivers 20 minutes for pre-shift work.

In sum, the court reasoned that the evidence revealed dissimilarity in policies and practices concerning compensation for the company’s fixed-route bus drivers.  Because the evidence showed employees were subject to different policies concerning key issues such as how they report time, how schedules are set, what period of time is compensable, whether they receive a meal break and how meal breaks are paid, the court concluded the plaintiffs did not satisfy the “strong likelihood” standard announced in Clark to obtain court-authorized notice of their FLSA claims.

Implications For Employers

The district court’s ruling in Woods leaves no doubt that FLSA plaintiffs in the Sixth Circuit face a heightened evidentiary burden to obtain court-authorized notice in the wake of the Sixth Circuit’s new standard in Clark.  The district court clarified that the “strong likelihood” standard in Clark is an evidentiary standard, not a pleading standard.  The court’s analysis in Woods shows defendants have a genuine opportunity to present evidence to attack the plaintiffs’ efforts to show a common policy of FLSA-violating conduct and thereby block notice to other employees who may expand the scope of the lawsuit exponentially.  Employers with operations in the Sixth Circuit ought to use Clark as an opportunity to look anew at their wage and hour policies and practices to guard against the risk of costly and time-consuming FLSA litigation.