Employers Win Some, Lose Some, In California Cases Started Prior To Dukes

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...