CAFA Class Action Defense Cases–United Steel Workers v. Shell Oil: Ninth Circuit Reverses District Court Order Remanding Class Action To State Court Holding Timely Removal Of Class Action Under CAFA By One Defendant Is Sufficient

District Court Erred in Remanding Labor Law Class Action Complaint to State Court because Defendants Separately Filed Notices of Removal Pursuant to Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), and Timely Removal under CAFA by One Defendant was Sufficient to Remove Class Action to Federal Court for All Defendants Ninth Circuit Holds The United Steel Workers union filed a class action in California state court against Shell Oil, Equilon and Tesoro alleging various labor law violations; the class action complaint asserted that defendants failed to provide employees with meal or rest periods, failed to provide proper wage statements, and failed to timely pay wages on termination.

Class Action Court Decisions Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

UPS Class Action Defense Cases–Taylor v. UPS: Fifth Circuit Reverses Dismissal Of Labor Law Class Action Holding Statutes Of Limitation Governing Class Action Claims Were Tolled During Appeal Of Related Class Action

Statutes of Limitation for Class Action Claims Against UPS were Tolled in Labor Law Class Action during Appeal from Summary Judgment in Favor of UPS in Certified Class Action Alleging Related Claims Fifth Circuit Holds

Plaintiff filed a class action against his former employer, United Parcel Service, alleging labor law violations; the class action complaint asserted that UPS discriminated against its employees on the basis of race. Taylor v. United Parcel Service, Inc., ___ F.3d ___, 2008 WL 5401487, *1 (5th Cir. December 30, 2008). Plaintiff worked for UPS from 1975 to 2004, during which time he was member of class action lawsuit that had been filed in 1994. _Id._ The 1994 class action alleged that UPS engaged in race discrimination; plaintiff “was a member of the pay and promotion class and gave deposition testimony on behalf of the class” in a class action that was dismissed on UPS’s motion for summary judgment in June 2000 and affirmed by the Eighth Circuit in August 2004. _Id._ (citing _Morgan v. United Parcel Service of America, Inc._, 143 F.Supp.2d 1143 (E.D.Mo. 2000), _aff’d_, 380 F.3d 459 (8th Cir. 2004), _cert. denied_, 544 U.S. 999 (2005)). In January 2003, during the pendency of the appeal in the prior class action, plaintiff filed a Title VII charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and in March 2003, plaintiff filed the present putative class action “alleging that UPS had denied him promotion on the basis of race and retaliation since at least 1993, denied him equal pay on the basis of race and retaliation since November 1991, and provided a hostile work environment.” _Id._ As the Fifth Circuit explained, “The biggest difference between the claims asserted in the _Morgan_ class action [filed in 1994] and this suit is [plaintiff’s] addition of the retaliation claims, which allegedly are related to his participation in _Morgan_.” _Id._ Defense attorneys moved for summary judgment as to all of the class action claims; the district court granted the motions as to the promotion and hostile work environment claims, but denied the motions as to plaintiff’s discriminatory and retaliatory pay disparity claims. _Id._, at *2 (citing _Taylor v. United Parcel Service, Inc._, 421 F.Supp.2d 946, 956 (W.D.La. 2006)). Plaintiff appealed, and the Fifth Circuit reversed.

The Fifth Circuit explained that its statute of limitations analysis played a “central part” in the district court’s decision to toss out of the class action complaint. Taylor, at *2. Specifically, “[t]he district court found that tolling ceased on [plaintiff’s] claims in 2000, when the Eastern District of Missouri dismissed the Morgan class claims, rather than in 2004, when the Eighth Circuit affirmed that dismissal”; based on that conclusion, all of plaintiff’s promotion claims in the current class action were time-barred to the extent they arose prior to March 2002. Id. (For reasons we do not here discuss, the district court found that plaintiff’s post-March 2002 promotion claims failed on the merits. See id.) With respect to the “retaliatory promotion” claims, the district court entered summary judgment in favor of UPS because plaintiff presented no evidence that the decision makers at UPS knew of his role in the Morgan class action, and that the time between plaintiff’s involvement in the 1994 class action and the March 2002 pay period “was simply too long to independently support an inference of causation.” Id. Finally, the lower court rejected the class action’s “hostile work environment” claim, and held that the four-year statute of limitations barred the class action’s discriminatory and retaliatory pay claims. Id., at *2-*3. Plaintiff challenged on appeal the district court’s ruling only as to the promotion and pay disparity claims, but not the hostile work environment claim. Id., at *3.

Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases– Ghazaryan v. Diva Limousine: California State Court Reverses Denial Of Class Action Treatment In Labor Law Class Action Holding Trial Court Erred In Believing It Had To Reach Merits To Certify Class Action

In Denying Motion for Class Action Certification, Trial Court Erroneously Concluded that it would be Required to Reach Merits of Class Action Allegations in order to Determine Ascertainability and Numerosity, Thus Necessitating Reversal and Remand with Instructions to Certify Labor Law Class Action California State Appellate Court Holds

Plaintiffs filed a class action against his employer, Diva Limousine, alleging labor law violations; the class action complaint asserted, in part, that Diva failed to pay overtime and failed to provide its employees with meal and rest breaks. Ghazaryan v. Diva Limousine, Ltd., ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Cal.App. January 12, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 3, n.3]. According to the class action’s allegations, Diva’s drivers collectively made anywhere from 100 to more than 200 trips on any given day, _id._, at 2. The facts underlying the class action complaint are as follows: Diva would provide its drivers with their first few assignments in order to permit the drivers to plan their breaks. Id. Diva also permitted about 75% of its drivers to take their vehicles home so that they could drive straight to their first assignment. Id. Once the first batch of trips had been completed, Diva’s dispatcher would dole out “additional trips according to location, availability and fairness among drivers”; on any given day, a driver may have as many as 8 assignments or less than 5. Id. The class action alleged that “Drivers have no way of predicting the length of any particular period of gap time although, on occasion, dispatchers may accommodate requests to schedule assignments around the drivers’ personal appointments.” Id. at 2-3. Plaintiff worked full-time for Diva, was “hard working” and “asked for as many assignments as available.” Id., at 3. Nonetheless, plaintiff “frequently had significant periods of on-call time between assignments.” Id. Diva prohibited its drivers from using company vehicles during “gap time” and required its drivers “to utilize gap time for their mandatory rest and lunch breaks, which could be interrupted if dispatched on an assignment.” Id. Further, drivers were not permitted to turn down assignments, even if the assignment conflicted with a meal or rest break, id. Plaintiff moved the trial court to certify the litigation as a class action, _id._, at 2. The trial court denied the motion, but the California Court of Appeal reversed.

Defense attorneys argued against class action treatment “principally because of the purported difficulties in identifying eligible members of the class and assessing the validity of Diva’s compensation policy as applied to different drivers who may or may not have used their gap time for personal pursuits”; certain employees, for example, are “dedicated event drivers” and are paid for their gap time. Ghazaryan, at 4. Additionally, a number of Diva’s drivers provided declarations that they “typically use unpaid gap time for their own purposes, such as working out at the gym, napping or eating at home or running personal errands,” and that they opposed plaintiff’s efforts to modify the manner in which Diva paid its drivers. Id. The trial court was persuaded by the defense arguments and refused to grant class action treatment to the litigation because of the “many individualized issues” raised by the class action complaint. Id. The trial court explained that determining numerosity would require that it “first determine an ultimate issue in the case, which this Court cannot do to determine the class.” Id., at 5. The trial court found further that the class was not ascertainable because it would first have to “determine if Diva’s practices are improper and, if so, which drivers fit into an appropriate class.” Id. The Court of Appeal reversed.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

FLSA Class Action Defense Cases–Bernal v. Vankar: Texas Federal Court Grants Class Action Plaintiffs Summary Judgment In Labor Law Class Action Concluding Employers Failed To Pay Minimum Wages And Overtime Required By FLSA

Class Action Plaintiff Alleging Violations of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Entitled to Summary Judgment because Employers Improperly took “Tip Credits” Against Employee Wages and Failed to Pay Overtime Required by FLSA Texas Federal Court Holds

Plaintiff filed a class action against his former employers – TDS Entertainment (which owns Dixie’s Country Bar), Chicago Bar and Vankar Enterprises (which owns Babcock Bar) – alleging violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); the class action complaint asserted that defendants failed to pay employees minimum wage because they unlawfully credited tips against their employees’ salaries. Bernal v. Vankar Enterprises, Inc., 579 F.Supp.2d 804, 805 (W.D.Tex. 2008). Specifically, the class action alleged that plaintiff worked at defendants’ bars for less than the federal minimum wage, that plaintiff received tips from customers, and that defendants required that plaintiff contribute a portion of his tips to a “tip pool” to be shared with “managers and/or other employees who do not customarily and regularly receive tips.” Id., at 805-06. The class action alleged that defendants were not permitted to take “tip credits” against plaintiff’s minimum, and so violated the FLSA by paying him less than minimum wage. Id., at 806. The class action complaint prayed to recover as wages the difference between the federal minimum wage and the actual wage paid by defendants., id. The district court granted plaintiff’s motion for class action certification, id. Plaintiff’s counsel then moved for summary judgment as to “(1) whether the bars failed to pay the applicable minimum wage under circumstances in which the bars were not permitted to claim a tip credit; and (2) whether the bars failed to pay overtime as required by the FLSA.” Id. The federal court granted the motion.

The district court explained that “[t] he primary issue before the Court is whether a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding Defendants’ entitlement to use the amount of tips its employees received in satisfaction of a portion of Defendants’ minimum wage obligations.” Bernal, at 806. After summarizing the well-known standards governing summary judgment motions, see id., at 806-07, the court discussed the FLSA’s authorization, under “limited circumstances,” to pay a “tipped employee” less than the federal minimum wage, id., at 807. A “tipped employee” – defined as an employee who customarily receives more than $30 per month in tips, see 29 U.S.C. § 203(t), may be paid less than minimum wage (but no less than $2.13 per hour) “if the amount of the tips the employee actually receives, added to the hourly wage the employer pays, is at least equal to the minimum wage in effect,” a practice known as “taking a ‘tip credit.’” Bernal, at 807. The district court explained, however, that “An employer may not…take a tip credit ‘with respect to any tipped employee unless such employee has been informed by the employer of the [tip credit] provisions’” and that “no tip credit may be taken ‘with respect to any tipped employee unless … all tips received by such employee have been retained by the employee,’ except in cases in which tips are pooled ‘among employees who customarily and regularly receive tips.’” Id. (citations omitted).

Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

ERISA Class Action Defense Cases–Boos v. AT&T: Texas Federal Court Certifies Class Action After Independently Analyzing Requirements For Class Action Certification Of Rule 23 Despite Lack Of Defense Objection To Class Action Treatment

District Court Independently Analyzes Class Action Certification Requirements of ERISA Class Action Complaint, despite Lack of Defense Objection to Class Action Treatment, and Concludes Class Action Certification Warranted Texas Federal Court Holds Plaintiffs, retirees of BellSouth Corporation, a subsidiary of AT & T, filed a class action against AT&T and BellSouth alleging violations of the he Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA); specifically, the class action complaint alleged “that (1) a benefit known as telephone concession, which was provided to certain employees of BellSouth after retirement, constitutes a defined benefit pension plan under ERISA (hereinafter, ‘plan claims’); and (2) that Defendants violated ERISA in administering and maintaining the telephone concession plan (hereinafter, ‘benefit claims’).

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

Sprint Class Action Defense Cases–Harlow v. Sprint: Kansas Federal Court Grants Class Action Treatment To Labor Law Class Action Against Sprint Alleging Systematic Failure To Properly Calculate Commissions Due Employees

Class Action Complaint Alleging Computer Problems Systematically Caused Sprint to Pay Employees Less than they were Due Warranted Class Action Treatment as Common Issues – Centered on Sprint’s Computer System – Predominated Class Action Claims Kansas Federal Court Holds

Plaintiffs filed a class action against Sprint Nextel Corporation and Sprint/United Management (collectively “Sprint”) alleging labor law violations; the class action complaint asserted that a computer error caused Sprint to systematically fail to properly calculate commissions due employees of Sprint’s Business Direct Channel. Harlow v. Sprint Nextel Corp., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (D.Kan. December 10, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1-2]. According to the allegations underlying the class action, these computer problems resulted in Sprint employees receiving each month $500-$1000 less than the amounts they were due, _id._, at 2. The class action centered, then, on a “problem with Sprint’s computer system that affects the amount of commissions the class members received.” _Id._ Originally, the class action complaint alleged causes of action for violations of Kansas’s Wage Payment Act, breach of contract, quantum meruit, promissory estoppels and unjust enrichment, but the parties stipulated to the dismissal of all claims except the Wage Payment Act and breach of contract class action claims. _Id._, at 4-5. Plaintiffs’ attorneys moved the district court to certify the litigation as a class action; defense attorneys argued against class action treatment. _Id._, at 1. The district court determined that class action treatment was warranted and therefore granted plaintiffs’ class action certification motion.

In ruling on the class action certification motion, the federal court stressed that the class action “centers on Sprint’s computerized procedures for calculating and paying commissions and not, for example, [on] a policy-based decision by Sprint to award a particular commission to one employee over another.” Harlow, at 5. The district court stressed that “[t]his distinction is key to the certification analysis.” Id. As the district court had little difficulty in finding that the requirements for class action certification under Rule 23(a) had been met, see id., at 13-17 (discussing numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation), we focus here – like the court – on the class action requirements set forth in Rule 23(b)(3). And in that regard, the federal court had little difficulty in determining that a class action is a superior means of resolving the issues presented in the complaint, rejecting Sprint’s objection that “a class action of this magnitude would be unmanageable because of the individualized inquiries to each plaintiffs’ claims” because the individual questions involved damage calculations. See id., at 11-13.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases–Starbucks v. Superior Court: California State Appellate Court Orders Judgment In Favor Of Starbucks In Labor Law Class Action Holding Named Plaintiffs In Class Action Suffered No Injury

Class Action Seeking Statutory Damages on behalf of all Applicants could not Survive Defense Motion for Summary Judgment because Class Action Representatives Suffered no Injury and Legislature did not Intend to Permit Unaffected Individuals to Recover Statutory Damages California State Court Holds

Plaintiffs filed a class action against Starbucks alleging violations of California labor law provisions concerning information collected from prospective employees during the application process; specifically, the class action complaint asserted that Starbucks improperly asked applicants “about prior marijuana convictions that are more than two years old.” Starbucks v. Superior Court, 168 Cal.App.4th 1436 (Cal.App. 2008) [Slip Opn., at 2]. According to the class action, “Starbucks uses the same two-page job application form nationwide for store level employees” and that one of the questions asked is, “Have you been convicted of a crime in the last seven (7) years?” Id. The application makes clear that “arrests are not convictions,” and advises that a conviction “will not necessarily disqualify you for employment.” Id. The class action sought statutory damages in the amount of $200 per applicant – “a remedy which, by Starbucks’ estimation, could total a whopping $26 million.” Id. The trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class action treatment, certifying a class of approximately 135,000 applicants. Id. The trial court certified the class action on behalf of all applicants who completed a questionnaire with the convictions question and who sought no more than $200 in damages, id., at 5. In the trial court’s words, “The mere offering of the application containing the impermissible question is a violation of the Labor Code. [¶] Damages may be calculated simply by multiplying the probable number of applicants during the class period times $200.00.” Id. Defense attorneys moved for summary judgment of the class action claims, asserting in part that class members suffered no damage. Id., at 2. The trial court denied the motion, and defense attorneys sought extraordinary relief from the Court of Appeal, id. The California Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that “[n]othing in the statutes in question authorizes job applicants to automatically recover $200 per person without proof they were aggrieved persons with an injury the statute was designed to remedy,” and ordered the trial court to enter judgment in favor of Starbucks.

The thrust of the class action was that California prohibits employers “from asking about marijuana-related convictions that are more than two years old.” Starbucks, at 4. The class action further argued that California law permits applicants “to recover actual damages or $200 each, whichever is greater.” Id. (citations omitted). The appellate court observed, however, that Starbucks disclosed on the reverse side of the application that California applicants need not disclose marijuana-related convictions that are more than two years old, stating in full: “CALIFORNIA APPLICANTS ONLY: Applicant may omit any convictions for the possession of marijuana (except for convictions for the possessions of marijuana on school grounds or possession of concentrated cannabis) that are more than two (2) years old, and any information concerning a referral to, and participation in, any pretrial or post trial diversion program.” Id., at 2-3. Notably, each of the named plaintiffs had read the disclaimer on the reverse of the Starbucks application and each understood that they were not required to disclose any marijuana convictions that were more than two years old; moreover, none of the named plaintiffs had been arrested for or convicted of a marijuana-related crime. Id., at 4-5. The Court of Appeal summarized at page 2, “Plaintiffs’ lawsuit suffers from two fundamental flaws, either of which provides ample grounds for writ relief. First, Starbucks attempted to disclaim an interest in such prohibited information, and two of the plaintiffs understood Starbucks not to be seeking it. Second, no plaintiff had any marijuana-related convictions to reveal.”

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases—In re Velocity Express: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Defense Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation But Selects Eastern District of Wisconsin

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Unopposed by Class Action Plaintiffs, but Transfers Class Actions to Eastern District of Wisconsin Eight class actions – one in New Jersey and one in Pennsylvania – were filed against common defendants Velocity Express Corp., Velocity Express, Inc., and Velocity Express Leasing, Inc. (collectively “Velocity Express”), and others, alleging labor law violations; specifically, the class action complaints alleged that defendants misclassified package delivery drivers as independent contractors rather than as employees.

Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Wal-Mart Class Action Defense Cases–Robinson v. Wal-Mart: Mississippi Federal Court Grants Wal-Mart Motion To Dismiss Labor Law Class Action Holding Rule 23(b) Requirements For Class Action Treatment Could Not Be Met

Labor Law Class Action Dismissed because Class Action Predominance Test of Rule 23(b) could not be Satisfied and, Absent Potential for Class Action Certification, Federal Court Lacked Subject Matter Jurisdiction because Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) was Inapplicable Mississippi Federal Court Holds

Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores alleging violations of Mississippi’s labor laws; specifically, the class action complaint alleged that Wal-Mart required plaintiffs to work hours “off the clock,” and to work through meal and rest periods for which they were not paid in violation of state law. Robinson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 253 F.R.D. 396, 397-98 (S.D. Miss. 2008). The class action sought to represent “all current and former hourly-paid employees of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., in the State of Mississippi that were employed from May 28, 1999 until the present,” and prayed for compensatory and punitive damages. Id., at 398. Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the district court granted the motion with leave to amend because plaintiffs had failed to allege citizenship as required to establish diversity jurisdiction, id. The amended class action complaint is “virtually identical” to the original class action complaint, and defense attorneys again moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the class action failed to allege the $5 million amount in controversy required for federal court jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Id. Also, the defense asked the federal court to dismiss the class action allegations in the complaint. Id. The district court granted the defense motion in part, and denied it in part.

Consistent with Fifth Circuit authority, the district court began its analysis with the jurisdictional attack under Rule 12(b)(1): “When a Rule 12(b)(1) motion is filed in conjunction with other Rule 12 motions, the court should consider the Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attack before addressing any attack on the merits.” Robinson, at 398 n.1 (quoting Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir.2001)). After noting that the burden of establishing federal court jurisdiction rested on “the party seeking to litigate in federal court,” id., at 398, the district court turned to Wal-Mart’s argument that CAFA’s $5 million amount in controversy requirement had not been met, id., at 399. Plaintiffs’ argued that the putative class consisted of 80,000 people and, accordingly, “each class member’s claim would only need to equal $62.50 to satisfy the $5,000,000 jurisdictional requirement.” Id., at 399. Plaintiffs’ noted also that they sought punitive damages, id. Defense attorneys made several arguments in support of the position that the $5 million threshold had not been met, but the district court concluded “it is not apparent, to a legal certainty, that Plaintiffs cannot recover the jurisdictional amount of $5,000,000 as claimed in their Amended Complaint.” Id. On this ground, then, the district court denied the motion to dismiss the class action, id. It rejected also Wal-Mart’s claim that the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the claims of some of the class members arose prior to CAFA’s effective date. Id., at 399-400.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

Sprint Class Action Defense Cases–Harlow v. Sprint: Kansas Federal Court Denies Motion To Dismiss Class Action Holding Kansas Wage Payment Act Class Action Claim May Be Brought By Employees Who Neither Live Nor Work In Kansas

Class Action Alleging Violations of Kansas Wage Payment Act may be Brought by Plaintiffs who do not Live or Work in Kansas because State Law Contains no Express Geographical Limitation and Employment Agreement Expressly Contained Kansas Choice of Law Provision Federal Court Holds Plaintiffs filed a class action against their employer, Sprint Nextel and Sprint/United Management (collectively “Sprint”) alleging violations of federal securities law; specifically, the class action claimed that “Sprint failed to pay [plaintiffs] proper commissions.

Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized