Authored By Robert Whitman

Seyfarth Synopsis: The Second Circuit will soon decide key issues for FLSA practitioners: whether settlements pursuant to an Offer of Judgment are subject to court review and approval, and whether the standards for final collective certification of FLSA claims are different from those for class certification of state law wage claims under Rule 23.

Two cases now before the Second Circuit, one involving a small Japanese restaurant, the other involving Mexican fast-casual chain Chipotle, offer the court the opportunity to experience the gustatory pleasures of two prime cuts of FLSA procedural law: enforceability of settlements and the standards for collective certification. It is a veritable feast for wage and hour geeks in the New York metropolitan area and beyond.

In Yu v. Hasaki, the court on October 23 accepted for interlocutory review the question of whether a district court must approve the settlement of FLSA claims when the settlement is procured through an Offer of Judgment under FRCP 68.

Yu involves FLSA and New York Labor Law claims by a sushi chef. To settle the case, the defendants made an offer of judgment, which the plaintiff accepted. After the parties advised the court, Judge Jesse Furman ordered them to submit their agreement for his approval, along with letters explaining why the settlement is fair and reasonable. The defendants objected, arguing that, under Rule 68, court approval of an accepted offer of judgment is mandatory, leaving no role for the judge in reviewing the agreement’s terms. They based their argument on the language in Rule 68 that, if a plaintiff accepts an offer, the clerk “must then enter judgment.”

In effect, the defendants contended that Rule 68 creates an exception to the Second Circuit’s decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, in which the court held that judicial approval of settlement terms is mandatory for dismissal of FLSA claims with prejudice and that many otherwise-customary settlement provisions, such as confidentiality and general releases, are not permissible. The U.S. Department of Labor weighed in as an amicus curiae, arguing that judicial approval is required, even when the settlement arises out of an accepted Rule 68 offer.

Judge Furman agreed, holding that the concerns articulated in Cheeks apply equally under Rule 68 as they do in standard FLSA settlements. But because other district judges had held differently, he certified his order for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), holding, among other things, that there was a substantial basis for disagreement on the issue. The Second Circuit accepted the case for review, stating that the decision “clearly merits interlocutory review under section 1292(b), as Judge Furman sensibly recognized.”

In Scott v. Chipotle, the appeals court is considering whether to address an issue that has long vexed FLSA litigators: whether the standard for final collective action certification under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) differs from the standard for class certification under Rule 23.

The plaintiffs in Scott are apprentices – managerial trainees – at Chipotle restaurants in several states. They sued under the FLSA and state law, claiming they were misclassified as exempt managers because they spent most of their time filling orders and operating cash registers. District Judge Andrew Carter granted conditional FLSA certification, and 516 employees opted in. But after discovery, the court refused to grant final FLSA certification, and likewise denied Rule 23 class certification of the state law claims, holding that the responsibilities of the seven named plaintiffs did not match those of the putative class or collective.

The plaintiffs appealed the state law class certification decision as of right under Rule 23(f). They also sought permission from Judge Carter to take an interlocutory appeal of his FLSA final certification ruling, contending that the court’s twin rulings highlighted a “rift” between the certification standards for FLSA and non-FLSA wage and hour claims that the Second Circuit could resolve. While disagreeing with the plaintiffs’ argument, Judge Carter nonetheless observed that they had indeed “point[ed] to controlling questions of law which may have substantial grounds for a difference of opinion,” and granted permission.

It is now up to the Second Circuit whether to allow the interlocutory appeal. If it takes the case, it will have the opportunity to issue a combined opinion, addressing both Rule 23 and section 216(b), that clarifies the standards for final certification under both regimes.

Whether one’s preferences run to wasabi or jalapeno, these cases are sure to satisfy even the hungriest of wage and hour lawyers.

 

Co-Authored by Sheryl Skibbe, Jon Meer, and Michael Afar

Seyfarth Synopsis: A recent court decision credited Nike’s time and motion study showing employees spent mere seconds of time in off-the-clock bag checks, finding the checks to be too trivial and difficult to capture to require payment. In contrast, the class failed to present actual evidence showing any amount of compensable time spent by the class off-the-clock while managers inspected their bags or checked their jackets.

In Rodriguez v. Nike Retail Services, Inc., Nike defeated a class action alleging that hourly retail workers were owed money for the time they spent waiting for security inspections after they had clocked out and were exiting the store.

Nike hired an expert to conduct a study of exit inspections, which showed that the average inspection takes no more than 18.5 seconds and that 60.5 percent of all exits required zero wait time. Rather than submit contradictory evidence in response to Nike’s 700 hours of video, which the court found to be representative of the class period, Plaintiff Isaac Rodriguez relied on an expert declaration attempting to poke holes in Nike’s study.

Judge Beth Labson Freeman called Plaintiff’s strategy “misguided,” rejecting “Rodriguez’s attempt to equate this situation to a battle of experts sufficient to deny summary judgment.” “[P]oint[ing] out flaws in the other side’s evidence,” was not the same as “offering any conflicting evidence for the jury to consider at trial on the relevant claim or defense.”

Evaluating Nike’s evidence under the de minimis defense, and recognizing that daily periods of up to 10 minutes have been found to be de minimis, Judge Freeman ruled that the workers hadn’t shown that their off-the-clock exit time was close to meeting that threshold. Although Rodriguez pointed to testimony from three store managers who estimated that some employees may have had a few inspections with higher wait-times, the judge found that wait-times of two or five minutes were too trivial, irregular and administratively difficult to capture.

Judge Freeman also agreed that repositioning time clocks to the front of the store so that employees could clock out after the check was not required. Taking a practical view, the court noted that “brief exit inspections are a modern business reality that most retailers, like Nike, use for the legitimate reason of reducing theft.”

Although the California Supreme Court is considering the de minimis doctrine in Troester v. Starbucks Corp., Judge Freeman declined Rodriguez’s invitation to “predict how the California Supreme Court will rule.” Instead, she noted that the court was compelled to apply existing law to the case, finding the Ninth Circuit and other courts had applied the de minimis doctrine to California claims.

For the moment, this ruling is good news for employers who can put away their stop watches when small increments of off-the-clock time are irregular and difficult to record. But keep your eye on the ball because the California Supreme Court will be making the final call on the de minimis doctrine and whether or how it applies in the state.

Co-authored by Kristin McGurn and Kevin Young

Seyfarth Synopsis: At a time when the Massachusetts meal break landscape is increasingly friendly to employees, a federal judge in the state recently denied class certification in a meal break case, Romulus, et al. v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. At issue were store policies, common in retail, that called for in-store key-holder coverage whenever the store was occupied. This decision represents both a victory and a roadmap for employers, and particularly retailers, facing meal break claims under Massachusetts law.

The plaintiffs in Romulus alleged that as Shift Supervisors, they were required to remain in the store during certain of their unpaid meal breaks, particularly during times when no other managers were present in the store. Further, the plaintiffs alleged, such breaks were often interrupted due to work. Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs sought certification of two classes of Shift Supervisors under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

On Wednesday, Judge Rya W. Zobel of the District of Massachusetts entered an order denying the plaintiffs’ bid for class certification. Relying on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s recent decision in DeVito v. Longwood Security Services, which set a strict standard for being “relieved of all duties” in order for meal breaks to be unpaid under state law, Judge Zobel assumed for purposes of her decision that remaining on-premises during a break is compensable “work.” Even under that assumption, Judge Zobel found class certification improper due to the plaintiffs’ inability to satisfy Rule 23’s “commonality” and “predominance” requirements.

With respect to commonality, Judge Zobel relied on the U.S. Supreme Court’s monumental decision Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in searching for a “common contention” that might produce the same injury to all class members. The judge found that resolving plaintiffs’ claims depended on the answers to two questions: (1) were putative class members required to remain in the store during meal breaks; and (2) if so, were they required to clock out (and thus be unpaid). She ruled that plaintiffs’ reliance on CVS’s policy and handbook statements were insufficient to resolve these critical questions on a class-wide level.

Specifically, Judge Zobel rejected the contention that policy statements relating to supervisor presence in the store when it was occupied by customers, taken together with a policy providing unpaid meal breaks, equated to common proof of an illegal practice capable of resolving all class members’ claims. The plaintiffs did not contend that the policies were facially unlawful, but rather challenged their implementation. Siding with CVS, Judge Zobel noted that the policy language did not necessitate that a Shift Supervisor remain in-store during meal breaks or take a meal break when no other manager was present. The judge also noted CVS policy language providing for the reporting and payment of in-store breaks. Accordingly, Judge Zobel found that—even assuming a policy requiring Shift Supervisors to remain in the store during certain meal breaks—resolving whether class members were required to clock out and go without pay for such breaks could not be resolved through common proof.

Judge Zobel also found that Rule 23’s more demanding predominance factor was unmet. That is, even if the law required CVS to compensate Shift Supervisors for meal breaks when they were required to remain on premises, the questions of whether supervisors were in fact required to do so, and whether they were then compensated, remained both unanswered and individualized. Denying certification, Judge Zobel ruled that the proposed classes were not “sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.”

The Romulus decision represents a major win for employers in the battle to avoid class certification, which is particularly notable on the heels of the stringent standard for unpaid meal breaks established in DeVito. The decision also provides a strategic roadmap for employers seeking to avoid certification where break-by-break implementation of facially lawful meal break policies is challenged.

iStock-513046321Authored by John P. Phillips

Seyfarth Synopsis: Recently the Ninth Circuit doubled down on its decision that service advisers at car dealerships are not exempt from the FLSA, despite being overturned once by the U.S. Supreme Court. This case gives the Supreme Court an excellent opportunity to address the proper construction of FLSA exemptions and allow the plain and common sense reading of the statute to govern.

A pending petition for writ of certiorari gives the U.S. Supreme Court a second opportunity to establish two important Fair Labor Standards Act issues: first, administrative agencies and courts should not lightly disregard decades of established practice when interpreting the FLSA, and second, the old canard that “exemptions should be narrowly construed against employers” should finally be put to bed. Employers across the country are hoping that the Supreme Court takes up Navarro, et al. v. Encino Motorcars, LLC  for the second time. And with the addition of Justice Gorsuch to the Court, the time may be ripe to address these issues.

Just as this case gives the Supreme Court a second chance to resolve important FLSA-related issues, this is our second opportunity to write about this case. In early 2016, we explained how the Supreme Court had the chance to address far-reaching implications on the interpretation of FLSA exemptions. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court did not do so, instead deciding only that the Ninth Circuit had improperly relied on faulty Department of Labor regulations, and remanding the case to the Ninth Circuit.

Case Background

In Navarro, et al. v. Encino Motorcars, LLC, a group of current and former car dealership employees who worked as service advisors brought a collective action under the FLSA in the Central District of California alleging that their dealership employer unlawfully failed to pay them overtime wages. As service advisors, the plaintiffs would meet and greet car owners as they entered the service area; evaluate customers’ service and repair needs; suggest services to be performed on the vehicle to address the customers’ complaints; solicit supplemental services to be performed (such as preventive maintenance); prepare price estimates for repairs and services; and inform the owner about the status of the vehicle. Service advisors did not receive an hourly wage or a salary but were instead paid by commission based on the services sold.

The district court dismissed the overtime claim and agreed with an unbroken line of authority from federal and state courts across the country. But the Ninth Circuit reversed, deferring to a DOL regulatory definition while acknowledging that its holding conflicted with every other court to have considered the question, and citing to the “rule” that FLSA “exemptions are narrowly construed against employers.”

The Supreme Court granted the dealership’s petition for a writ of certiorari and agreed to answer the question of “whether ‘service advisors’ at car dealerships are exempt.” Unfortunately, the Supreme Court did not answer the question. Instead, the Court analyzed the DOL regulations, found them to have been issued without a reasoned or adequate explanation and, accordingly, ruled that the Ninth Circuit should not have relied upon them. Having decided this, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit rather than answer the ultimate question of whether the service advisers were exempt.

Predictably, the Ninth Circuit doubled down on its earlier opinion, ruling that the service advisers were not exempt under the FLSA. In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit admitted that service advisers fit in the “literal” reading of the statute, but decided that the literal reading was not what Congress intended. In addition, the Ninth Circuit again cited to the “longstanding rule” that FLSA exemptions “are to be narrowly construed against the employers seeking to assert them.”

Recently, Encino Motorcars appealed the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, filing a petition for writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to hear the case again. The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether it will take the case, but employers and attorneys (not to mention car dealerships) around the country are hoping the Court takes this opportunity to address the important FLSA issues at stake in this case.

Potential Implications for FLSA Collective Actions

First, this case demonstrates the willingness of federal agencies and some courts to upend years of established industry practice. Here, car dealerships have relied on settled precedent and practice to treat service advisors as exempt since the 1970s. Every court to have examined the issue had found that service advisors were properly exempt from the FLSA. However, the DOL first departed from this precedent in 2011, and the Ninth Circuit followed suit.

In recent years, the Supreme Court has taken legal theories that would upend years of long-settled industry practice with a large grain of salt. As the Court recently noted, “while it may be ‘possible for an entire industry to be in violation of the [FLSA] for a long time without the Labor Department noticing,’ the ‘more plausible hypothesis’ is that the Department did not think the industry’s practice was unlawful.” Encino Motorcars pointed this out in their petition for writ of certiorari, and hopefully the Supreme Court will provide succinct guidance to agencies and courts that long-standing industry practice should be considered before any ruling that upends such reliance.

Second, the Ninth Circuit—in both of its opinions—relied on the doctrine that the FLSA’s exemptions should be narrowly construed against employers. This maxim has been increasingly questioned by the Supreme Court. In its petition, Encino Motorcars highlighted the late-Justice Scalia’s words, where he stated that the goal of a court interpreting a statute “should be neither liberally to expand nor strictly to constrict its meaning, but rather to get the meaning precisely right.” In fact, Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito, even referred to it as a “made-up canon” in the Supreme Court’s decision, and stated that it rests on an “elemental misunderstanding of the legislative process.” Nor are Justices Thomas and Alito likely to be alone. Although it is still a little early to speculate on Justice Gorsuch’s views, the justice once famously stated that “when the statute is plain it simply isn’t our business to appeal to legislative intentions.”

If the Supreme Court accepts the case, it would provide the Court an excellent opportunity to address repeat problems in FLSA jurisprudence and help support a more just and statute-based approach to interpreting FLSA exemptions.

Co-authored by Julie Yap and Michael Cross

Seyfarth Synopsis:  The California Court of Appeal affirmed a denial of class certification on the ground that the plaintiff’s expert report failed to establish claims could be determined on common evidence. The ruling highlights that trial courts are permitted to weigh conflicting evidence related to whether common or individual issues predominate. While expert reports often inform merits questions relating to damages, when those reports are the main source of support for certification, they equally inform issues of liability.

Plaintiff, a former Oracle technical analyst, filed suit alleging that Oracle’s employment practices violated various state wage and hour laws and constituted unfair business practices. Plaintiff’s case, both in the trial and appellate courts, turned largely on the reliability of his expert’s report.

Plaintiff’s expert’s opinion was based on a comparison of Oracle’s (1) payroll records, (2) internal time records, and (3) time cards. In comparing those data sets, Plaintiff’s expert purported to find a discrepancy between the number of overtime hours technical analysts worked and the number of overtime hours for which Oracle had paid them. In addition, by reviewing the time cards, the expert purported to uncover that many analysts took shortened or late meal breaks, or missed them altogether. Plaintiff moved to certify a class relying on a handful of putative class member declarations, but, in large part, through reference to a concurrently-filed expert report, arguing that his claims were subject to common proof through the expert’s comparison and analysis of Oracle’s records.

Oracle opposed Plaintiff’s motion to certify, relying on its own expert’s report and 42 declarations, 22 of which were from putative class members. Oracle’s rebuttal expert identified significant flaws in the methodology and care used by the Plaintiff’s expert. Among other flaws, Plaintiff’s expert included on-call, non-worked, and sick time in his time card numbers, which created significant discrepancies between the purported time worked and the time paid. In addition, the Plaintiff’s expert misread Oracle’s spreadsheets and ignored a $21 million overtime payment that Oracle had made. Finally, the expert made a number of assumptions about the data he analyzed, but failed to disclose those assumptions in his report.

The Trial Court’s Denies Certification

In denying Plaintiff’s motion for certification, the Court concluded that Plaintiff’s expert report was unreliable based largely on the reasons set forth in Oracle’s opposition. Specifically, the court found that because Plaintiff relied on his expert’s report to establish that three of his claims could be determined by common proof, and because that report was unreliable, he could not establish commonality for those claims.

The Appellate Court Affirms The Denial of Certification

Plaintiff appealed the trial court ruling on two main grounds. He first argued that whether or not his expert’s calculations were accurate should not have been considered on his motion for certification. Accuracy of expert reports, he argued, is a merits question. Second, Plaintiff argued that the trial court improperly weighed the competing declarations submitted by the parties.

In evaluating the first question, the Court of Appeal noted that whether or not common issues predominate over individual ones is often closely tied to the ultimate merits of a claim. But the Court did not stop there. The Court rejected Plaintiff’s argument that Plaintiff’s expert’s opinion went only to the merits of alleged damaged in the case, holding that when a party’s expert report serves as its sole support for establishing that common questions predominate, the party has transformed that report into evidence of liability, not damages. As the Court explained:

Plaintiff’s only evidence that uncompensated overtime and missed, late, or short meal breaks could be established classwide with common proof was [his expert’s] declaration and his comparison of [two of Oracle’s] databases. The issue here is whether Plaintiff can establish that class members worked overtime for which they were not paid or had late, short, or missed meal breaks on a classwide basis, and this is a question of entitlement to damages, not damages themselves.

The Court also found it was within the lower court’s discretion to weigh competing declarations from the parties in order to determine whether the requirements for class certification were satisfied, and that doing so was not an improper evaluation of the merits.

Employers defending against class certification motions that rely on expert opinions to establish liability can, and should, offer contrary evidence, and make clear to the court that they are arguing certification and liability issues, not simply damages issues.

Co-authored by Kyle A. Petersen and Molly C. Mooney

Seyfarth Synopsis:  The Second Circuit recently upheld a district court order denying a bid for class certification by personal bankers claiming their managers refused to approve timesheets with overtime hours, shaved reported overtime hours, and pressured them to work off the clock. Because the company’s policy governing (and limiting) overtime work was lawful on its face, the bankers’ claims hinged on the exercise of managerial discretion in applying those policies. The district court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate sufficient uniformity in the exercise of managerial discretion, and the Second Circuit affirmed.

As noted earlier, the trial court’s decision reflects reluctance by some trial courts to certify nationwide class actions based on local or even regionalized evidence of rogue managers deviating from company policy. The Court of Appeals has now given its seal of approval to that approach.

In Ruiz v. Citibank, N.A., personal bankers from several states alleged that Citibank had a strict policy limiting overtime hours while also setting rigorous sales goals and quotas for the bankers that could not be achieved in a forty-hour workweek. The bankers also alleged that branch managers refused to approve timesheets with overtime hours, or shaved overtime hours off of the bankers’ timesheets.

The bankers sought certification of a class consisting of bankers with claims under New York, Illinois, and District of Columbia law. Their attempt to establish commonality — primarily through anecdotal evidence of pressure to work off the clock and a not uncommon and entirely legal goal of reducing overtime work — fell short and was rebutted by putative class member testimony of variations across branches. For example, putative class members testified that individual branch managers had differing management styles for incentivizing and motivating employees to meet their sales goals — some plaintiffs were rewarded for positive sales performance, with no reference to overtime hours they worked in doing so, while others failed to achieve sales goals with no admonition. This, said the court, showed that the pressure to work off the clock was not uniformly felt and precluded the case from proceeding as a class. On appeal, the Second Circuit wholeheartedly agreed with the district court’s “lucid and accurate analysis” and affirmed denial of class certification.

While not a game changer, this decision reaffirms the need for plaintiffs to come up with more than anecdotal evidence of allegedly systemic problems, and highlights how employers can use class member depositions to defeat class certification.

Authored by Rachel M. Hoffer

It’s a common business model in the fast-food industry: a massive restaurant company provides the menu, the marketing—including catchy slogans and a universally recognized logo—and the basic operational standards for the restaurant,
and a franchisee provides the rest—including hiring, training, and firing restaurant employees. Unfortunately for the fast-food giants (the notorious FFGs, if you will), it’s also common for disgruntled employees to name them in lawsuits—particularly super-sized class-action lawsuits—against the franchisee.

In March 2014, three fast-food workers from Oakland did just that—they sued the family-owned company that operates 8 franchise restaurants in Northern California, and they brought the FFG along for the ride under a joint employment theory, serving up a complaint chock full of California Labor Code, Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), and negligence claims. Last August, a federal judge in California dismissed the negligence claim on summary judgment and rejected the workers’ theory that the franchisee acted as the FFG’s actual agent. But the judge didn’t toss out the workers’ claims completely, finding the plaintiffs had presented enough evidence of ostensible agency to have their day in court with the FFG.

Determined to have it their way, right away, the plaintiffs settled their claims against the franchisee but moved to certify a class of more than 1,200 hourly workers who had worked at the franchisee’s eight restaurants. Unwilling to pick up the franchisee’s remaining tab, the FFG moved to deny class certification and to strike the representative PAGA claim. And the FFG did what Giants tend to do in San Francisco—it won. Last week, the judge found that the workers’ ostensible agency theory required too many individualized inquiries to be decided on a class basis.

Under an ostensible agency theory, the FFG is on the hook for the franchisee’s actions if the worker can prove: (1) in dealing with the franchisee, the worker reasonably believed the franchisee had the authority to act on the FFG’s behalf; (2) the worker’s belief was caused by something the FFG did or failed to do; and (3) the worker wasn’t negligent in relying on the franchisee’s apparent authority.

The workers argued that the questions of law or fact common to potential class members outweighed the questions that affected only individual members, and that a class action was the best way to fairly and efficiently decide their claims. In support of this argument, the workers asserted that the “belief” prong of the first requirement—that the potential class members believed the franchisee had the authority to act for the FFG—could be inferred from the circumstances. The judge wasn’t convinced that the law allows such an inference, nor was he convinced that the evidence supported such an inference. Instead, the evidence showed that class members received different information about the franchisee’s authority, and some actually understood that the FFG was not their employer. So, the question of belief had to be decided on an individual basis.

The judge also found that there was no way to determine, on a class basis, whether such a belief was reasonable and not negligent. Rather, what each worker knew (or should have known) varied depending on the circumstances. Some workers, for example, were told during orientation that the franchisee was their employer and the FFG was not. Some workers received and read documents informing them that the franchisee, not the FFG, was their employer; others either did not receive or did not read that paperwork. In other words, whether a belief was reasonable and not negligent depended on the information available to each worker.

Likewise, the judge found that reliance can’t be determined on a class-wide basis. The workers—pointing to out-of-context case law—argued that courts often presume reliance when there is no evidence that the plaintiff knew or should have known that the purported agent was not an agent of the principal. But even if that case law applies in the franchise context, the workers’ argument begged the question; the presumption couldn’t apply on a class-wide basis because, as the judge had already explained, the knew-or-should-have-known question couldn’t be answered on a class-wide basis. The order: individualized inquiries, all the way.

The workers also argued that the court should certify a class because they were seeking injunctive relief on a class-wide basis. But the judge didn’t see how an injunction against the FFG could help the franchisee’s employees, when he had found in his summary-judgment opinion that the FFG didn’t control the aspects of their employment at issue in the case. Simply put, where’s the beef?

The workers’ PAGA claim fared no better; the judge found that a representative PAGA action wouldn’t be manageable because it relied on the ostensible agency theory, which could only be established through individualized inquiries. So, while the three plaintiffs can still pursue their individual claims against the FFG on an ostensible agency theory, those are small fries compared to the representative claims they had hoped to bring on behalf of more than 1,200 other workers.

The take-home for the notorious FFGs who franchise independent restaurant owners, of course, is to stay out of the kitchen when it comes to the relationship between the franchisee and its employees. And, for the FFGs’ sake, franchisees should make sure employees know where their bread is buttered.

Authored by

Seyfarth Synopsis: In what many employers will see as a “break” from workplace reality, the Supreme Court, in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., announced that certain “on call” rest periods do not comply with the California Labor Code and Wage Orders. As previously reported on our California Peculiarities Employment Law Blog, this decision presents significant practical challenges for employers in industries where employees must respond to exigent circumstances.


On December 23, 2016, the California Supreme Court issued its long-anticipated decision in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., affirming a $90 million judgment for the plaintiff class of security guards on their rest break claim. The Supreme Court found that the security guards’ rest breaks did not comply with the California Labor Code and Wage Orders, because the guards had to carry radios or pagers during their rest breaks and had to respond if required.

The Supreme Court took a very restrictive view of California’s rest break requirements, concluding that “one cannot square the practice of compelling employees to remain at the ready, tethered by time and policy to particular locations or communications devices, with the requirement to relieve employees of all work duties and employer control during 10-minute rest breaks.” Thus, in the Supreme Court’s view, an employers may not require employees to remain on call—“at the ready and capable of being summoned to action”—during rest breaks.

See our One Minute Memo for more details on the decision and thoughts on the implications of this case for California employers. The Augustus decision presents significant practical challenges for employers, especially in industries in which employees must be able to respond to exigent circumstances.

Workplace Solution:

The holding that “on call” rest periods are not legally permissible should prompt employers to evaluate their rest-break practices. In industries where employees must remain on call during rest periods, employers should consider seeking an exemption from the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement. Lawyers in the Seyfarth California Workplace Solutions group can assist with other suggestions for responding to this decision.

Authored by Michael Kopp

With all the drama of a get-away chase, the Third Circuit recently brought to a screeching halt plaintiffs’ counsel’s elaborate maneuvers to end run repeated decertification of their FLSA actions, and held as a matter of first impression in Halle v. West Penn Allegheny Health System, Inc. that opt-in plaintiffs have no right to appeal decertification. The decision is important for three reasons. First, it offers a road block against the use of opt-in plaintiffs to appeal a decertification order, including where the named plaintiffs’ claims have been mooted. Second, it offers instruction on how to structure class notices to foreclose potential opt-in appeals. Third, it underscores the heightened strategic value of Rule 68 offers to named plaintiffs in FLSA actions after decertification to block appeals.

In a long and winding procedural path, plaintiffs’ counsel employed a “whack a mole” strategy to keep the possibility of a collective action alive after successive certification defeats. Counsel originally filed two separate FLSA collective actions, asserting claims that two hospitals and their affiliates failed to compensate work performed during unpaid meal period times. After conditional certification of the separate actions, over 3,000 and 800 individuals respectively opted into the two actions. In a happier moment in this narrative, the district court judges decertified the actions, due to differences in practices for reversing the 30-minute automatic deduction for meal periods, and differences in job duties and supervision that would impact whether work was performed during meal periods.

Plaintiffs’ first escape maneuver was a voluntary dismissal of their claims with prejudice, in the hopes of prompt appellate review of the interlocutory decertification orders. Instead, the Third Circuit rejected this “procedural slight-of-hand,” and held that by dismissing their claims, the named plaintiffs had mooted their claims (along with any right to challenge decertification). The appeals were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Not to be deterred, plaintiffs’ counsel filed two new class actions against the same hospital defendants, with only slight modifications to the proposed class. The district courts promptly slammed the brakes, struck the collective allegations, and held that issue preclusion barred the named plaintiffs (who were opt ins in the prior actions), from re-litigating the prior decertification decision. In what appeared to be the end of the road, the employers then mooted the named plaintiffs’ claims by extending Rule 68 offers which were all accepted.

Not willing to give up the chase, plaintiff’s counsel deployed opt-in plaintiffs to appeal the order striking the collective allegations, claiming the opt-ins were “party plaintiffs” with full rights to appeal. The Third Circuit rejected these “procedural gymnastics,” finding that (1) the order striking the collective allegations effectively dismissed the opt-ins as parties to the action, and they therefore could not appeal the subsequent judgments, and (2) the opt-ins had signed consent forms ceding the individual authority to litigate, including the right to appeal. The Third Circuit recognized the claimed “unfairness” of leaving the opt-in plaintiffs without an opportunity to appeal where the employer “picked off” the named plaintiffs. Nonetheless, the court found that the “potential for unfairness” cannot trump an absence of jurisdiction.

Halle is, accordingly, important guidance in structuring class notices, and highlights the continuing strategic value of Rule 68 offers later in the action, including to moot claims and thereby potentially obtain expedited finality for a decertification order.

Authored by Christopher A. Crosman

We are excited to announce the 16th edition of Seyfarth Shaw’s publication Litigating California Wage & Hour and Labor Code Class ActionsAs in previous editions, this publication reviews the most commonly filed wage and hour and Labor Code class and representative claims and the development of the law over the last several years, and discusses and analyzes the various types of wage & hour class actions that affect many California employers. This new edition has been updated to reflect the latest developments in the law and promises to delight.

Download the publication using this convenient link today!