Class-Action News - Workplace Fairness

Choose Language:
print
decrease text size increase text size
text

Home1
- Our Programs
  - Class-Action News

main content

Our Programs
Class-Action News

This page contains archived content.

In the Courts

Elizabeth M. v. Montenez (No. 05-2750)

8th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: August 15, 2006

A class certification order in an action brought by present and former female patients a state's residential mental health facilities claiming that defendants-officials failed to protect them from certain sexual and physical assaults, and failed to adequately treat their mental illnesses and developmental disabilities, is vacated where plaintiffs failed to satisfy the requirements of Article III and Rule 23, and the district court abused its discretion in presuming the requirements were satisfied. Read the decision.

Tittle v. Enron Corp.

5th Circuit | Decision Date: September 5, 2006

In a dispute stemming from the Enron collapse and centering around the interpretation of two fiduciary liability insurance policies, denial of Kenneth Lay's wife's and Jeffrey Skilling's motion to compel arbitration and to stay an interpleader action pending arbitration is affirmed where the only present dispute was one among the insureds over the proper allocation of interpleaded funds, and the scope of an arbitration clause did not encompass such a dispute. Read the decision.

Zielinski v. Pabst Brewing Co., Inc.

7th Circuit | Decision Date: September 7, 2006

Summary judgment for brewing company in a class action suit seeking injunctive relief and damages related to changes in a prescription drug plan for retired workers is vacated and the case remanded where: 1) the presumption against vesting was overcome by the language and lack of end date in a shutdown agreement; and 2) the plaintiff class is entitled to benefits adjusted according to the duration of the commitment made by the employers. Read the decision.

Augustin v. Jablonsky

2nd Circuit | Decision Date: August 24, 2006

In an appeal concerning Nassau County Correctional Center's blanket strip search policy for newly admitted, misdemeanor detainees, denials of plaintiffs' repeated class certification motions for lack of common issue predominance are reversed as: 1) district courts may certify a class on a particular issue regardless of whether plaintiffs' claims, as a whole, satisfy the predominance test; 2) the district court erred when it excised common liability issues from its predominance analysis; and, as a result, 3) the district court exceeded its discretion in declining to certify a class on the issue of liability pursuant to Rules 23(b)(3) and (c)(4)(A), Fed. R. Civ. P. Read the decision.

Cooper v. IBM Personal Pension Plan (No. 05-3588)

7th Circuit | Decision Date: August 7, 2006

Judgment for plaintiffs in a class-action suit alleging age discrimination under ERISA in the structure of a pension plan is reversed where the plan did not discriminate based on age, even though participants of different ages experienced different results. Read the decision.

Hart v. Fed Ex Ground Package Sys. Inc. (No. 06-2903)

7th Circuit | Decision Date: August 9, 2006

Denial of motion to remand to Pennsylvania in a class-action employment suit is affirmed where the structure of the Class Action Fairness Act logically shifts the burden of persuasion to the plaintiff to show that the "home-state controversy" or "local controversy" exceptions apply. Read the decision.

Doe v. US

Federal Circuit | Decision Date: September 11, 2006

Dismissal of a complaint brought by Department of Justice attorneys against the government for alleged violations of the overtime provisions of the Federal Employees Pay Act is affirmed over their claim that the Court of Federal Claims erred when it dismissed their claims for overtime pay, administratively uncontrollable overtime (AUO), and holiday pay. Read the decision.

Koehl v. Verio, Inc.

California Appellate Districts | Decision Date: September 13, 2006

Judgment for defendants, in class action brought by former sales associates for restitution of wages and alleging that defendant employer illegally charged back previously paid commissions when a sale failed to generate revenue, is affirmed as the commissions were not wages and the chargebacks did not violate Labor Code section 221. Read the decision.

Cohen v. DirecTV

2nd District (CA) Court of Appeal | Decision Date: September 18, 2006

Denial of motion to compel arbitration, filed by defendant satellite television programming company in case brought by subscriber seeking class action status based on allegations that defendant covertly degraded some of its high definition transmissions, is affirmed as the prohibition on class litigation in the arbitration clause of the customer agreement is unconscionable and unenforceable. Read the decision.

Ezra Charitable Trust v. Tyco Int'l, Ltd.

1st Circuit | Decision Date: September 27, 2006

Dismissal of action alleging that Tyco did not adequately clean up its books in the wake of a major corporate scandal, and that new management perpetuated a fraud in the accounting for one of the company's largest subsidiaries, is affirmed where the amended class action complaint did not adequately allege scienter under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Read the decision.

Huynh v. Chase Manhattan Bank

9th Circuit | Decision Date: September 28, 2006

In a suit to recover amounts on deposit in foreign banks during the fall of Saigon in 1975, dismissal of the action is affirmed where, under application of the appropriate choice-of-law rules, the claims are time-barred and cannot be saved by equitable tolling. Read the decision.

Zavala v. Scott Bros. Dairy

California Appellate Districts | Decision Date: September 28, 2006

Denial of defendant employer's petition to compel arbitration, in class action alleging unfair business practices and wage claims regarding itemized wage-statements and rest periods, is affirmed as the nonnegotiable, nonwaivable, minimum statutory labor standards plaintiffs seek to assert stand independent of the collective-bargaining process. Read the decision.

Senger v. City of Aberdeen

8th Circuit | Decision Date: September 29, 2006

In an action brought by current and former firefighters to recover overtime pay that they claim is due them under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), grant of the defendant's motion for summary judgment and the denial of the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment are both reversed where there is ambiguity as to precisely what the FLSA means when it says that each employee will be "credited." Read the decision.

Tittle v. Enron Corp.

5th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: October 3, 2006

Denial of Kenneth Lay's and Jeffrey Skilling's motion to compel arbitration in an insurance interpleader action brought by Enron's fiduciary insurer as part of a larger class action for breach of fiduciary duty is affirmed where the only dispute was one among the insureds over the proper allocation of the interpleaded funds, and the scope of the arbitration clause did not encompass such a dispute. Read the decision.

Aron v. U-Haul

California Appellate Districts | Decision Date: October 3, 2006

Judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendants on plaintiff's consumer class action suit, alleging that defendant's refueling charges and practices violate the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the California Unfair Competition Law, is reversed as plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to state a cause of action under the UCL and section 1770(a)(5) of the CLRA. Read the decision.

Alvarez v. May Dep't Stores Co.

California Appellate Districts | Decision Date: October 11, 2006

Sustaining of demurrer without leave to amend the complaint's class action allegations, in action brought by 56 of defendant's past and present sales managers alleging Labor Code violations and unfair practices, is affirmed over claim that the doctrine of collateral estoppel is inapplicable to an order denying class certification in another lawsuit brought by other plaintiffs, because absent putative class members are not bound prior to the certification of a class, or, alternatively, the doctrine of collateral estoppel was erroneously applied. Read the decision.

Bates v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.

9th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: October 10, 2006

In the context of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): 1) when plaintiffs challenge an employer's use of a safety-based qualification standard, they need not, independently of that challenge, establish generally that they can perform the essential function of doing the job safely; 2) they are, however, required to show they are "qualified" in the sense that they satisfy prerequisites for the position, including safety-related prerequisites, not connected to the challenged criterion; 3) also, they have the burden to prove that the challenged qualification standard "screen[s] out or tend[s] to screen out an individual with a disability or a class of individuals with disabilities;" and 4) the burden then shifts to the employer to establish the business necessity defense. Read the decision.

Morgan v. Gay

3rd Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: October 16, 2006

A provision of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. section 1453(c)(1), which states that a federal appellate court "may accept an appeal" from a remand order "if application is made to the court of appeals not less than 7 days after entry of the order," should be read to mean "not more than 7 days after entry of the order" because the uncontested legislative intent behind the statute was to impose a seven-day deadline for appeals. Read the decision.

Santamarina v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

7th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: October 19, 2006

Order of remand to a California state court in a class action alleging fraudulent misrepresentation concerning the "Craftsman" line of tools is affirmed where the case was not removable under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 since it was filed before the effective date of the Act, and an amended complaint filed after the effective date did not constitute a new cause of action. Read the decision.

Miller v. Farmers Ins. Exch.

9th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: October 26, 2006

In an action brought by former and current claims adjusters alleging that their employer improperly classified them as exempt from the Fair Labor Standard Act's (FLSA) overtime requirement, the court of appeals holds that all of the adjusters in the matter are exempt, contrary to the district court's finding that only some were. Read the decision.

Huber v. Taylor

3rd Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: October 31, 2006

In a case involving class action plaintiffs' attorneys who were being sued for breach of fiduciary duty and related counts by a putative class that the attorneys themselves formed for asbestos personal injury litigation, summary judgment for defendants-attorneys and denial of class certification are reversed and vacated, respectively, where the district court erred in its choice of law analysis, which led it to require that plaintiffs demonstrate actual harm in a claim of breach of fiduciary duty when the remedy sought is disgorgement. Read the decision.

Saab v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

8th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: November 22, 2006

The review provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 1453(c) are limited to class actions brought under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. section 1332(d). Read the decision.

Miles v. Merrill Lynch & Co.

2nd Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: December 5, 2006

Grant of class certifications in six focus cases out of 310 consolidated class actions alleging securities law violations on the part of underwriters in connection with initial public offerings, is vacated as: 1) a district judge may not certify a class without making a ruling that each Rule 23 requirement is met; 2) all evidence must be assessed as with any other threshold issue; 3) the fact that a Rule 23 requirement might overlap with an issue on the merits does not avoid the court's obligation to make a ruling as to whether the requirement is met; and 4) the cases pending on this appeal may not be certified as class actions. Read the decision.

Burr & Forman v. Blair

11th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: November 27, 2006

In dispute over attorney fees awarded after settlement of mass tort litigation, district court's denial of the attorney fees claim and enjoining of defendants from prosecuting a breach of contract action against plaintiff law firm, is reversed as the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim and to enter the injunction. Read the decision.

In Re: African-Am. Slave Descendants Litig.

7th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: December 13, 2006

Dismissal for lack of standing of a series of class actions under 42 U.S.C. section 1982 brought by descendants of African-American slaves against companies or successor companies that were, or assisted, slave-owners is: 1) modified so that the dismissal of all claims other than those brought by legal representatives of a slave's estate or those with a claim under consumer protection law is without prejudice; 2) modified to dismiss an individual claim without prejudice for lack of diversity; 3) affirmed where the claims of the legal representatives violate the statute of limitations, thus dismissal with prejudice was proper on the merits; 4) reversed where the consumer protection claims were not barred at the threshold; and 5) reversed where a set of suits removed from California state court must remain in the Chicago district court for further pretrial proceedings to the extent that the suits make consumer protection claims. [sign-in required] Read the decision.

Andrews v. Roadway Express Inc.

5th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: December 19, 2006

In a suit brought by four class members of a settled class action discrimination lawsuit to enforce an Order approving a Consent Decree in that action and to recover back-pay and interest under its terms, summary judgment against plaintiffs is affirmed where Texas procedures governed enforcement of plaintiffs' judgment and, under Texas law, the action was dormant and forever time-barred. [Sign-in required.] Read the decision.

United Steelworkers of Am. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co.

6th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: January 17, 2007

A judgment compelling arbitration of a dispute brought by a union over a side agreement that limited company contributions to retiree healthcare benefits is affirmed where: 1) the court adopts the "scope" test, specifically, unless the parties indicate otherwise, disputes over a side agreement are arbitrable if the subject matter of the side agreement is within the scope of the CBA's arbitration clause; 2) under such test, the dispute was arbitrable; 3) the union had standing to arbitrate on behalf retirees and survivors. However, an order certifying a class is vacated as the district court erred by not requiring consent of the class members to union representation. [Sign-in required.] Read the decision.

Langbecker v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp.

5th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: January 18, 2007

Class certification of employees' ERISA action arising from defendants' alleged mismanagement of a company's 401(k) retirement plan is vacated and remanded where: 1) the district court incorrectly eliminated the ERISA section 404(c) defense from its evaluation of the suitability of the allegations on appeal for class treatment; 2) it erroneously refused to consider releases pertinent to the maintenance of a derivative suit on behalf of the plan; 3) although named representatives held sufficiently typical claims, the district court must reconsider whether they are adequate representatives in light of inherent intraclass conflicts; and 4) maintaining a Rule 23(b)(2) class action and the district court's superficial analysis of the Rule 23(b)(1) alternative were improper. [Sign-in required.] Read the decision.

Payton v. County of Carroll

7th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: January 18, 2007

Dismissal of 12 of 13 counts and denial of class certification in a putative class action against various counties challenging an administrative fee for posting a bond with the county sheriff is affirmed where plaintiffs failed to state a claim on the dismissed counts, and the named plaintiffs' claims were not typical of those of plaintiffs detained in other counties. [Sign-in required.] Read the decision.

Lebeau v. US

Federal Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: January 24, 2007

In a class action brought against the government under the Little Tucker Act for breach of trust based on what plaintiffs asserted was the Secretary of the Interior's unreasonable delay in distributing to them their share of the Mississippi Sioux Tribes Judgment Fund, an award for plaintiffs is reversed where the district court erred in its determination that plaintiffs were entitled to money damages as a result of the Secretary's breach of trust. [Sign-in required.] Read the decision.

Pioneer Elecs. (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County

California Supreme Court | Decision Date: January 25, 2007

This appeal raised the issue of the extent to which California's right to privacy provision protects purchasers of potentially defective DVD players from having their identifying information disclosed to the plaintiff during civil discovery proceedings in a consumers' rights class action against the seller. The court finds, contrary to the court of appeals' ruling, that the trial court properly evaluated the alternatives, balanced the competing interests, and permitted disclosure of contact information regarding Pioneer's complaining customers unless, following proper notice to them, they registered a written objection. [Sign-in required.] Read the decision.

First American Title Inc. Co. v. Superior Ct. (Sjobring)

California Court of Appeal, 2nd Dist. | Decision Date: January 25, 2007

In an action alleging unlawful title insurance practices, an order granting motion to a class action representative plaintiff, who is not a member of the class he purports to represent, in order to obtain precertification discovery for the express purpose of identifying a member of the class who is willing to become a named plaintiff is vacated, as the current plaintiff is a stranger to the action. The grant of such discovery would sanction an abuse of the class action procedure. [Sign-in required.] Read the decision.

Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc.

9th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: February 6, 2007

In a class action suit by women employees against Wal-Mart alleging sexual discrimination under Title VII, certification of plaintiffs' class with minor modifications is affirmed where there was no abuse of discretion in a conclusion that it would be better to handle this case as a class action instead of clogging the federal courts with innumerable individual suits litigating the same issues repeatedly. [Sign-in required.] Read the decision.

Chesher v. Neyer

6th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: February 16, 2007

In a class action lawsuit against a county, county morgue employees, and a private photographer stemming from an "art project" he did at the morgue in which he photographed dead bodies without the knowledge or consent of the decedents' relatives, denial of summary judgment for defendants is affirmed and remanded. [Sign-in required.] Read the decision.

Chaly-Garcia v. US

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: November 29, 2007

In a suit brought by plaintiff against the United States and officials seeking relief as a class member under the class action settlement agreement in American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh, 760 F. Supp. 796 (N.D. Cal. 1991) (ABC), which involved asylum applicants from El Salvador and Guatemala, summary judgment for defendants is reversed as plaintiff is a member of the ABC class and is entitled to the benefits of the agreement in the case. Read the decision.

Ligas v. Maram

7th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: February 15, 2007

In a class action suit under the ADA to require Illinois to provide community-based care for the class of institutionalized developmentally disabled people capable of living in the community, denial of petition to intervene is affirmed. [Sign-in required.] Read the decision.

Albritton v. Cagles, Inc.

U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: November 30, 2007

In cases arising from some of the "donning and doffing" litigation, alleging compensation is owed for time spent putting on and taking off protective or sanitary clothing necessary for work, dismissal of cases for failure to comply with the consent requirement of 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) is affirmed as consents filed by the plaintiffs in a previous lawsuit (Anderson v. Cagle's, Inc.) were limited to that litigation and they do not carry over to the present litigation. Read the decision.

Nelson v. Hodowal

7th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: January 2, 2008

In a suit under ERISA alleging that a pension plan's fiduciaries failed to anticipate a decline in the value of the plan's stock holdings, judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) outgoing directors' decision to sell most of their stock in the company was not material information; 2) an ERISA fiduciary does not have a duty to disclose, directly to a plan's participants, non-material information that may affect the participants for reasons unrelated to the value of the investment; and 3) a fiduciary is not responsible for the decline in an investment's value when an informed and independent investment adviser has been furnished without charge to all beneficiaries, who exercise full control over which investments their accounts will hold. Read the decision.

Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc.

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: December 11, 2007

Beattie v. CenturyTel, Inc.

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: December 18, 2007

In a class action alleging that defendant-telecommunications service provider violated federal and state law by using deceptive billing practices to bill customers for a wire maintenance program, a decision certifying the class is affirmed as to certification of the class on its federal-law claims under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but remanded as to the state law claims for purposes of a Rule 23 analysis. Read the decision.

Hall v. Time Inc.

California Appellate Districts | Decision Date: January 8, 2008

In suit alleging claim for class action relief under the California unfair competition law (UCL), demurrer and judgment on the pleadings for defendants are affirmed where plaintiff alleged neither injury in fact nor causation, and thus lacked standing to pursue a UCL claim against defendants. Read the decision.

CashCall, Inc. v. Superior Ct. of San Diego County

California Court of Appeal, District 4, Div. 1 | Decision Date: January 24, 2008

In the class action context, there is no bright-line rule that the original class representative plaintiffs must be members of the class to have standing to obtain precertification discovery. In the circumstances of this action against a lender alleging violation of plaintiffs' privacy rights, the trial court did not err by applying a balancing test and ordering precertification discovery for the purpose of identifying class members who may become substitute plaintiffs in place of named plaintiffs who were not members of the class they purported to represent. Read the decision.

New England Health Care Employees Pension Fund v. Woodruff

10th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: January 16, 2008

In an appeal brought by the former CEO and CFO of Qwest, approval of a class action settlement in a securities fraud case, which did not include the CEO and CFO, is remanded for the district court to make appropriate findings and conclusions with respect to their objections to the settlement. Read the decision.

Anderson v. CNH US Pension Plan

8th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: February 7, 2008

In a putative class action brought by several retirees of a company against two entities that administer the company's pension and retirement plans, an appeal from denial of class certification is dismissed as the case is moot since plaintiffs have no remaining personal stake in the litigation. Read the decision.

Long John Silver's Restaurants, Inc. v. Cole

4th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: January 28, 2008

In case involving alleged violations of the FLSA for failure to pay overtime, order declining to vacate arbitration award which held that the "opt-in" class certification provision of the FLSA did not apply and that the arbitration proceedings were governed by the "opt-out" class certification provision of the AAA Class Rules is affirmed over claims that the court erred in failing to recognize that: 1) the arbitrator, in making the Award, had manifestly disregarded controlling legal principles; and 2) the arbitrator had exceeded the scope of his authority. Read the decision.

In re: Syncor ERISA Litig.

9th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: February 19, 2008

When parties (1) enter into a binding class action settlement agreement, which requires court approval pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and (2) provide the required notice of the settlement to the district court prior to the district court's entry of the final judgments, the district court should hold a hearing and review the settlement agreement to determine if it is fair, reasonable, and adequate. A failure to do so, even when the district court has already drafted a summary judgment order, is an abuse of discretion. Read the decision.

Lussier v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.

9th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: March 7, 2008

In an appeal by putative class representatives in wage dispute litigation, denial of their request for attorney's fees following a successful motion to remand the underlying action after it had been removed by defendant pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that, given the lack of clarity in the law at the time, defendant's removal arguments were not unreasonable. Read the decision.

Pierce v. County of Orange

9th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: March 24, 2008

In a class action brought by pretrial detainees in Orange County's jail facilities raising numerous constitutional, federal, and state law claims, a judgment against plaintiffs is affirmed for the most part, but reversed in part where: 1) two Stewart orders, which secure inmates housed in administrative segregation some minimal access to religious services and exercise, may not be terminated; 2) the district court clearly erred in finding that such orders were unnecessary to correct a current and ongoing violation of a federal right; and 3) because of physical barriers that deny disabled inmates access to certain prison facilities, and because of disparate programs and services offered to disabled versus non-disabled inmates, the county is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Read the decision.

Springman v. AIG Mktg.

7th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: April 15, 2008

In a class action suit against insurers alleging that defendants violated fraud and consumer protection law by underpaying accident insurance claims submitted by the plaintiff and the members of his class, denial of the plaintiff's motion to remand to state court is affirmed where the substitution of a defendant did not relate back to the original suit since the plaintiff's delay in moving for substitution prevented the new defendant from knowing that, but for mistake, the action should originally have been brought against it. Thus, the filing date of the lawsuit for removal purposes under the Class Action Fairness Act was the date of substitution, which placed the action within the Act's effective date and allowed for removal to federal court. Read the decision.

Jonites v. Exelon Corp.

7th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: April 3, 2008

In a suit alleging that defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by the way it implemented its on-call program and also by forcing plaintiffs to work during their lunch break without pay, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the on-call requirements did not restrict the plaintiff' activities such that the wait time for on-call assignments constituted work time; and 2) the lunch issue was better suited for determination by an arbitrator. Read the decision.

Gutierrez v. Johnson & Johnson

3rd Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: April 22, 2008

In a class action against former employer on grounds of racial discrimination, a petition for permission to appeal a denial of class certification is dismissed where petitioner's Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(f) petition was untimely. Read the decision.

Negrete v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of N. Am.

9th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: April 29, 2008

In a class action lawsuit against an insurance corporation challenging the sale of its fixed deferred annuities, an order, which effectively prevents defendant from proceeding with any settlement negotiations on similar class action claims raised in any other courts without permission from plaintiff's lead counsel, is reversed where: 1) in the context of the All Writs Act, there was no proper support for the district court's enjoining of proceedings in other courts; and 2) even if there were, the Anti-Injunction Act barred such injunction. Read the decision.

Lewis v. City of Chicago

7th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: June 4, 2008

In an action brought under Title VII involving the Chicago Fire Department's hiring practices, alleging that the test administered by defendant separating those eligible to work into "well qualified" and "qualified" groups had a disparate impact on the black applicants and was not a valid test of aptitude for firefighting, judgment for the plaintiff is reversed where: 1) the filing of the claim was untimely since the injury took place when black applicants were classified as "qualified" and not each time the city hired applicants in the "well qualified" group; 2) there was no continuing violation since the plaintiffs were injured when they were placed in the "qualified" category; and 3) equitable tolling did not apply. Read the decision.

Harney v. Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC

7th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: May 30, 2008

In a class action alleging that the manner in which defendant paid and forfeited its employees' bonuses violated Indiana's Wage Payment Statute and Wage Claims Statute, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the bonuses were conditioned on continued employment and plaintiffs failed to meet this criteria; 2) even if the unpaid bonuses could be considered "wages" they are considered deferred compensation and subject to forfeiture; 3) plaintiffs were not entitled to damages from defendant's failure to pay the bonuses within a statutory ten day period since bonuses are not wages; and 4) certification of certain questions of state law to the Indiana Supreme Court is denied. Read the decision.

Amaral v. Cintas Corp. No. 2

California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division 3 | Decision Date: June 11, 2008

In an appeal presenting numerous legal issues concerning the constitutionality and application of a living wage ordinance which was enacted by a city and incorporated into its municipal contracts, the trial court's judgment and post-judgment rulings for the case are affirmed in its entirety with respect to: 1) rejection of challenges to the constitutionality of the ordinance; 2) findings on summary judgment or summary adjudication that employer-party violated the ordinance, breached its contracts with the City, and violated several Labor Code provisions; and 3) awards of back wages and unpaid benefits, imposition of penalties, and awards of statutory attorneys' fees and costs. Read the decision.

Rahman v. Chertoff

7th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: June 26, 2008

In an interlocutory appeal in a suit alleging violations of constitutional rights and seeking more effective ways of improving the FBI's and the Department of Homeland Security's methods of identifying and screening travelers, certification of two nationwide classes is reversed and remanded where: 1) the classes in the case failed to meet the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3); 2) the classes were too ambulatory; and 3) the wrongs alleged were best addressed by individual lawsuits. Read the decision.

Silvercreek Mgmt. Inc v. Banc of Am. Sec. LLC

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: July 7, 2008

In a suit arising out of the Enron collapse, denial of a motion to extend a class settlement opt-out deadline is affirmed where: 1) the evidence presented by plaintiff and the performance of plaintiff's counsel fell below the threshold required for neglect to be excusable; and 2) plaintiff waived its due process objection for failure to raise it in district court. Read the decision.

LA ex rel Caldwell v. Allstate Ins. Co.

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: July 18, 2008

In a parens patriae action alleging violations of Louisiana's antitrust laws, denial of plaintiff's motion to remand the case back to state court after removal to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act is affirmed where: 1) the Louisiana attorney general has power to bring parens patriae antitrust actions and possesses broad powers to vindicate the interests of the state; 2) the policyholders and not the state are the real parties in interest due to the state's request for treble damages; and 3) plaintiff waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity. Read the decision.

Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Ct.

California Appellate Districts, Dist. 4., Div. 1 | Decision Date: July 22, 2008

In an action involving alleged violations of laws governing rest and meal breaks on transfer from the state supreme court, the court of appeals rules that: 1) while employers cannot impede, discourage or dissuade employees from taking rest periods, they need only provide, not ensure, rest periods are taken; 2) employers need only authorize and permit rest periods every four hours or major fraction thereof and they need not, where impracticable, be in the middle of each work period; 3) employers are not required to provide a meal period for every five consecutive hours worked; 4) while employers cannot impede, discourage or dissuade employees from taking meal periods, they need only provide them and not ensure they are taken; and 5) while employers cannot coerce, require or compel employees to work off the clock, they can only be held liable for employees working off the clock if they knew or should have known they were doing so. Read the decision.

Parra v. Bashas', Inc.

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: July 29, 2008

In a class action brought by current and former employees of defendant alleging that they had been discriminated against based upon their national origin in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. section 1981, a decision denying certification of the class alleging pay discrimination is reversed where the district court abused its discretion in failing to find commonality in plaintiffs' original class definition for the discriminatory pay claim. Read the decision.

Garcia v. Tyson Foods, Inc.

U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: July 28, 2008

In a class-action case brought against Tyson Foods alleging, inter alia, violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), defendants' appeal from an interlocutory order denying their motion for partial summary judgment is dismissed where the interlocutory order had no precedential effect and could not have modified an injunction that had been entered against defendant's predecessor-in-interest in another case. Read the decision.

Gene & Gene LLC v. Biopay LLC

5th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: August 14, 2008

Order certifying a class of plaintiffs who alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. section 227, specifically unsolicited advertisements sent from one fax machine to another, is reversed where: 1) there was subject-matter jurisdiction over the case under the Class Action Fairness Act; and 2) plaintiffs had failed to advance any viable theory employing generalized, class-wide proof concerning the issue of lack of consent. Read the decision.

Abner v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co.

5th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: August 14, 2008

In employees' race discrimination suit, award of plaintiffs' attorney's fees and costs for an initial trial which ended in a hung jury is affirmed where a court may award reasonable fees, including those incurred in a first, inconclusive trial, and in doing so may: 1) cut out fees charged for work on unsuccessful claims and any other unreasonable work; and 2) look to the ultimate result of the case, especially as to the significant issues litigated, and the overall relief obtained. Read the decision.

Buckley v. Mukasey

4th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: August 20, 2008

In an action under Title VII claiming race discrimination, sex discrimination, and retaliation stemming from plaintiff's employment as a special agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration, judgment as a matter of law for the government is vacated and remanded where: 1) district court's ruling on certain class action litigation evidence constituted an error of law and thus, an abuse of discretion; 2) the court erred in granting the government's Rule 50 motion on a failure-to-promote retaliation claim; and 3) plaintiff was entitled to a new trial on the claims that were, and which should have been, submitted to the jury in a 2006 trial. Read the decision.

Bull v. City & County of San Francisco

9th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: August 22, 2008

An order denying qualified immunity in an 42 U.S.C. section 1983 class action suit is affirmed where, under the circumstances of this case, San Francisco's blanket policy of strip searching without reasonable suspicion of all individuals arrested and classified for housing in the general jail population violated the arrestees' clearly established constitutional rights. Read the decision.

Shook v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of the County of El Paso

10th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: August 29, 2008

In a suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of mentally ill patients at a county jail, denial of class certification is affirmed where: 1) Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) authorizes an inquiry into the relationship between the class framed in the complaint and injunctive relief requested; and 2) a district court does not abuse its discretion in denying class certification where providing the requested relief at the level of specificity required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d) would render a class action unmanageable, either because of difficulties in determining relevant aggregate characteristics of the class or because factual differences between class members require different standards of conduct for undefined groups within the class. Read the decision.

Hoffman v. Construction Protective Servs.

9th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: September 4, 2008

In an employment class action suit, exclusion of evidence regarding damages is affirmed where: 1) numerous plaintiffs made state law claims separate from the Fair Labor Standards Act class action; and 2) plaintiffs failed to disclose damages calculations per individual plaintiff. Read the decision.

Trout v. Sec'y of the Navy

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: September 2, 2008

In a class-action Title VII suit alleging sex discrimination by the Navy, order requiring plaintiffs to refund certain attorneys' fees and interest is affirmed where: 1) an intervening Supreme Court case regarding the retroactivity of sovereign immunity defenses did not apply to require defendant to pay attorneys' fees incurred prior to 1991; and 2) plaintiffs were not a "prevailing party" for purposes of litigating claims for interest on awarded attorneys' fees, because this litigation was separate from the sex-discrimination litigation. Read the decision.

Lee v. Dynamex

California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division 7 | Decision Date: September 17, 2008

In a putative class action lawsuit against defendant-parcel delivery company alleging it had improperly reclassified plaintiffs-drivers from employees to independent contractors in violation of California law, denials of plaintiff-employees' motion to compel and motion for class certification are reversed where: 1) the trial court erred in finding the proposed class lacked ascertainability; and 2) the trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion to compel disclosure of the identity of potential class members. Read the decision.

Pichler v. Union of Needletrades, Indus. and Textile Employees, AFL-CIO

3rd Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: September 9, 2008

In a class-action suit alleging violation by defendant-labor union of plaintiffs' privacy rights under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), summary judgment for plaintiffs in part and for defendants in part is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) remand was necessary for analysis of whether summary judgment was appropriate on the issue of punitive damages; 2) if summary judgment on punitive damages was not appropriate, the Seventh Amendment required a trial by jury on the issue; 3) certain plaintiffs were properly dismissed for lack of standing to sue under the DPPA; 4) remand was necessary for analysis of whether summary judgment was appropriate on the issue of whether defendants had made multiple uses of plaintiffs' private information; 5) defendant's use of plaintiffs' personal information was for a purpose not permitted by the DPPA; 6) DPPA's statutory scheme allowed a finding of civil liability even if defendants did not know their use of the information obtained was impermissible; and 7) DPPA allowed the recovery of liquidated damages even without a showing of actual damages. Read the decision.

In Re: American Express Merchants' Litigation

2nd Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: January 30, 2009

In a matter of first impression, decision holding that the enforceability of a class action waiver provision contained in the contract between parties was a question for the arbitrator is reversed and remanded where: 1) the question of the enforceability of the class action waiver provision was properly decided by the court; and 2) the class action waiver provision was unenforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act. Read the decision.

Cundiff v. Verizon California, Inc.

California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division 3 | Decision Date: October 16, 2008

Following judgment in favor of plaintiffs in a class action consumer protection suit against defendant-Verizon California alleging unfair business practices, judgment regarding distribution of undeliverable settlement checks in favor of defendant-Verizon is reversed where: 1) notwithstanding the "claims-made" nature of the settlement, the definition of "unpaid residue" accurately described the unclaimed funds at issue in this case; and 2) court rejected Verizon's assertion the legislative history of section 384 suggests it should be applied only in fluid recovery cases in which a common fund is created. Read the decision.

Arreola v. Godinez

7th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: October 14, 2008

In a putative class-action suit by an inmate challenging a jail's policy of denying crutches to injured inmates in certain areas of the jail, denial of certification of a class for injunctive relief is affirmed, and denial of certification of a class for damages is remanded where: 1) plaintiff had standing to sue; 2) plaintiff's second amended complaint was not time-barred; 3) the proposed class for injunctive relief did not meet the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) requirements for certification; and 4) remand was necessary for consideration of whether the proposed damages class met the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements. Read the decision.

Arreola v. Godinez

7th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: October 14, 2008

Winnett v. Caterpillar, Inc.

6th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: January 27, 2009

In a suit alleging that defendant-employer breached its promise to provide lifetime retiree medical benefits to plaintiffs at no cost, a district court decision in favor of plaintiffs is reversed on interlocutory appeal where a 1998 collective labor agreement did not provide workers with a right to no-cost retiree medical benefits that vested as soon as the worker became eligible for retirement or a pension. Read the decision.

Taylor v. United Parcel Serv. Inc.

5th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: December 30, 2008

In a race discrimination and retaliation suit brought by an African-American employee, district court erred in granting summary judgment to the employer where: 1) all claims were timely because the statute of limitations was tolled through the conclusion of an appeal on a similar discrimination class action against UPS in which plaintiff was a class member; and 2) plaintiff had submitted sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case of discriminatory and retaliatory pay disparity. Read the decision.

Amoche v. Guarantee Trust Life Ins. Co.

1st Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: February 13, 2009

In the context of the $5 million amount-in-controversy requirement for removal under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, the circuit court rules that, at least where the complaint does not contain specific damage allegations, a removing defendant must show a reasonable probability that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. Read the decision.

Homa v. Amer. Express Co.

3rd Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: February 24, 2009

In a class action, district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice in favor of individual arbitration is reversed where: 1) the Federal Arbitration Act does not preclude the circuit court from applying state law unconscionability principles to void a class-arbitration waiver; and 2) under New Jersey choice of law principles, if the claims at issue are of such a low value as effectively to preclude relief if decided individually then the application of Utah law to the class-arbitration waiver is invalid and the waiver is unconscionable. Read the decision.

Budrow v. Dave & Buster's of California, Inc.

California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division 8 | Decision Date: March 2, 2009

In a class action suit, trial court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) bartenders employed by defendant may participate in tip pools established pursuant to the Labor Code, as the Code does not distinguish between direct and indirect table service or limit tip pools to employees providing direct table service; and 2) plaintiff cannot maintain his action under the Business and Professions Code, as it is predicated solely on the alleged illegality of defendant's tip pool. Read the decision.

Franco v. Athens Disposal Co., Inc.

California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division 2 | Decision Date: March 10, 2009

In a class action suit, trial court's grant of defendant's petition to compel arbitration based on a written agreement is reversed where: 1) the class arbitration waiver in the agreement was unconscionable with respect to the alleged violations of the meal and rest period laws given the modest size of the potential individual recovery, the potential for retaliation against members of the class, and the fact that absent members of the class may be ill informed about their rights; and 2) the arbitration agreement is unconscionable as it prevents plaintiff from acting as a private attorney general and seeking civil penalties on behalf of other employees, conflicting with the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. Read the decision.

Hohider v. UPS

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: July 23, 2009

District court judgment certifying a class of employees alleging unlawful discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act is reversed where: 1) the court abused its discretion in identifying the Teamsters legal standard as controlling plaintiffs' claims and in granting certification after adopting the Teamsters method of proof to adjudicate plaintiffs' claims without considering the ADA's statutory elements; and 2) the required inquiry under the ADA into the elements of qualification and reasonable accommodation cannot be evaluated on a classwide basis in a manner consistent with FRCP Rule 23, and thus the class cannot be certified as plaintiffs cannot adjudicate their claims and requested relief without it. Read the decision.

Brown v. Nucor Corp.

U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: August 7, 2009

In an appeal from the denial of plaintiffs' motion for class certification in an employment discrimination action, denial of the motion is vacated where: 1) plaintiffs presented compelling direct evidence of discrimination sufficient to meet the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 commonality requirement; and 2) there was insufficient evidence that each of the employer's departments was so autonomous as to justify classifying them as separate environments. Read the decision.

Monroe v. City of Charlottesville

U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: August 31, 2009

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action claiming that defendant-city's police performed racially discriminatory searches, district court's denial of class certification is affirmed where plaintiff had little interest in or knowledge and understanding of the case, and appeared to be merely lending his name to the suit. Dismissal of plaintiff's Fourth Amendment and equal protection claims is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's subjective beliefs were irrelevant in assessing whether a reasonable person would have felt free to terminate his encounter with the police; and 2) the city did not classify plaintiff on the basis of his race. Read the decision.

Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: August 18, 2009

In an employment discrimination case under the Rehabilitation Act, the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint is vacated and remanded where: 1) a 4 year limitation applies to plaintiff's failure-to-transfer claim, and not the general 2 year statute of limitations the district court applied in barring the complaint; 2) plaintiff's complaint need only allege sufficient facts to state a plausible failure-to-transfer claim; 3) plaintiff need only plead that she is an individual with a disability and the district court improperly focused on whether she could prove she was disabled; but 4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an untimely motion for a class action determination. Read the decision.

Ali v. U.S.A. Cab. Ltd.

California Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate District, Div. 1 | Decision Date: August 24, 2009

In a wage and hour action against a taxicab company claiming that the company's leases wrongfully classified lessees as independent contractors rather than employees, the denial of class certification is affirmed, where the purported class would be unmanageable, and common questions did not predominate over individual issues, given differences among lessees' situations. Read the decision.

Young v. Johnson & Johnson

1st Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: September 28, 2009

In a class action lawsuit against pharmaceutical companies claiming that they unfairly and deceptively inflate drugs' average wholesale prices (AWPs), district court's judgment dismissing Class 1 plainitffs' claims is vacated and remanded as there is a lack of clear understanding of both the scope of the district court's judgment and the reasons for the judgment. Read the decision.

In re: Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litig.

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: September 8, 2009

In class action cases claiming a vast conspiracy between some of the nation's largest insurance brokers and insurance carriers involving bid rigging and steering of customers, district court's orders granting final approval of a $121.8 million settlement and a $28 million settlement, as well as the district court's order approving an award of $29.5 million for attorneys' fees and expenses is affirmed where: 1) each element of the alleged RICO violations and violation under the Sherman Act involved common questions of law and fact which predominated over any individual ones and therefore satisfies the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3); 2) the district court's decision not to certify separate subclasses or require separate representation did not constitute an abuse of discretion and likewise, its approval of the settlement agreement and plan of allocation was also within its discretion; and 3) district court's award of attorneys' fees was reasonable and not an abuse of discretion. Read the decision.

Cho v. Seagate Tech. Holdings, Inc.

California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, Div. 3 | Decision Date: September 15, 2009

In a class action lawsuit against a manufacturer for falsely overstating in advertising and packaging the storage capacity of computer disc drives that it manufactures for public sale, trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling a class member's objections and approving a settlement as there are no facts that show the parties engaged in any collusion or improper conduct. However, the matter is vacated and remanded to correct the class definition to unambiguously state that indirect purchasers of new Seagate disc drives are members of the plaintiff class and to renotice the settlement in order to give adequate notice to all class members, and allow for additional claims, objections or opt outs. Read the decision.

Schachter v. Citigroup, Inc.

Supreme Court of California | Decision Date: November 2, 2009

In a putative class action against Citigroup by its former employees challenging the company's forfeiture provision of a voluntary employee incentive compensation plan (Plan) upon termination in violation of Labor Code section 201 and 202, the judgment of the court of appeals granting Citigroup's motion for summary judgment is affirmed as the company Plan's forfeiture provision does not run afoul of sections 201 or 202 because no earned wages remain unpaid upon termination for cause or resignation. Read the decision.

Allen v. McWane Inc., No. 08-41037

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: January 11, 2010

In an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act seeking payment for pre- and post-shift time spent donning and doffing protective gear, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where, at each plant at issue, there existed a custom or practice of not compensating pre- or post- shift time spent putting on and taking off protective gear. Read the decision.

Bates v. Rubio's Rest., Inc.

California Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate District, Div. 3 | Decision Date: November 30, 2009

In a $7.5 million settlement agreement arising from a wage and hour class action lawsuit, trial court judge's order vacating an earlier ruling that the 140 late-identified class members should receive notice and then recusing himself from any further proceedings in the matter is affirmed where: 1) when a judge is not disqualified at the time of making the first ruling, the first ruling does not become void just because the judge later disqualifies himself in the interests of justice and encapsulates both rulings in one minute order; and 2) defendant's argument that the judge's order vacating the prior ruling about the 140 late-identified class members must be reversed is rejected. Read the decision.

Narouz v. Charter Comms., LLC

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: January 15, 2010

In a class action for unpaid wages, the district court's denial of the parties' motion to certify a class for settlement purposes is vacated where: 1) the voluntary dismissal by a class representative of his personal claims in a putative class action lawsuit did not render moot his appeal of the denial of class certification; and 2) the district court erred in denying class certification without providing any findings or providing any analysis of the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 factors. Read the decision.

Calvao v. Town of Framingham , No. 09-1648

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: March 17, 2010

In police officers' putative class action suit against a town claiming that the town failed to pay them sufficient overtime in violation of the FLSA, district court's grant of partial summary judgment holding that the town met the eligibility requirements for the public safety exception is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs' argument that the town was required to notify affected employees before establishing a valid work period under section 207(k) is rejected; 2) the text of the statute, as well as caselaw, confirm that a public employer need only establish a section 207(k) compliant work period to claim the exemption's benefits without explicitly giving notice to affected employees, and here, the town has done so and is entitled to judgment; and 3) plaintiffs' claim that the district court abused its discretion by denying their motion to strike certain evidence is rejected. Read the decision.

Gutierrez v. California Commerce Club, Inc.

California Court of Appeal | Decision Date: August 2, 2010

In plaintiffs' putative class action lawsuit against California Commerce Club, Inc. (Club), claiming that they and other similarly situated members of the class were injured by defendant's unlawful policy and practice of denying meal and rest breaks to certain hourly, non-union employees, trial court's order sustaining defendant's demurrer without leave to amend is reversed as it was premature for the trial court to make determinations pertaining to class suitability on demurrer as plaintiffs' allegations of the operative complaint were sufficient to move the action beyond the pleading stage. Read the decision.

Dukes v. Walmart

9th Circuit Court of Appeals | Decision Date: December 11, 2007

Supreme Court set to hear this term! The Dukes case involves the biggest employment discrimination class action ever filed in the US. With up to 1.5 million potential class members, Dukes tests the bounds of what similarities must be shared by class members in order to certify a class - although it is unclear if the Supreme Court will rule on this question. The lawsuit alleges that Wal-Mart discriminated against its female employees in its promotion and pay practices. Class members represent every level of employee in the company, from hourly store clerks to salaried managers, as well as employees from more than 3400 stores across the country. Wal-Mart challenged the certification of the class, claiming among other things that the class size is unmanageable and coercive - unmanageable because it would be virtually impossible for the company to defend itself against that many claims and coercive because a class that big forces the company into settling the claims rather than spend the money to litigate the action. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled en banc to uphold the certification of the class. The US Supreme Court granted cert in December and oral arguments are expected in March 2011. Read the decision.

Tien v. Tenet Healthcare Corp.

Cal.App.4th | Decision Date: February 16, 2011

In a class action asserting wage-related claims brought by hourly employees, alleging that employer-health care provider did not pay legally mandated additional wages for missed meal periods and rest breaks, denial of class certification is affirmed where substantial evidence, unchallenged by plaintiffs, supported each denial of class certification and plaintiffs failed to show the court's ruling was error. Read the decision.

Eduardo Rios, et al., Appellants, vs. Jennie-O Turkey Store, Inc., et al., Respondents.

State of Minnesota Court of Appeals | Decision Date: February 18, 2011

Jennie-O Turkey Store, Inc., operates six turkey-processing plants in Minnesota. The company requires production-line workers to wear certain gear and equipment (e.g., boots, pants, smocks, gloves, and hats) to meet sanitation and safety standards. These employees must put on the required gear and equipment before they start their shifts and remove it at the completion of their shifts. For meal breaks, they must partially don and doff those items. Before 2007, Jennie-O recorded the times that the hourly production-line employees started and ended their shifts by using a pre-set start time or by having a supervisor swipe a time card. The shift ended with individual time-card swipes. However, starting in 2007, a different method was used; the start and end of a shift were determined by individual time-card swipes. A group of current and former employees filed a class-action suit against the company, contending that neither timekeeping method fully captured the time it took to don and doff, that they were underpaid as a result, and that the company violated their employment contracts and the MFLSA. Read the decision.

Hodge v. Aon Insurance Services

Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Eight | Decision Date: February 24, 2011

The appeal before us today arises from a class action in which claims adjusters currently or previously employed by a third party administrator (TPA) allege that their employer unlawfully designated them as exempt administrative employees as defined by Wage Order No. 4. The parties tried the case to the trial court, and the court concluded that the employer had not violated the overtime regulations because the claims adjusters were exempt administrative employees. We affirm the trial court's judgment. Read the decision.

Johnson v. U.S. Vision, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit | Decision Date: February 24, 2011

Debra Johnson, as a potential class representative, appeals the district court's order denying her motion to remand this case to state court. She claims Defendants failed to demonstrate the necessary jurisdictional amount in controversy under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. � 1453(c)(1) and we REVERSE and REMAND. Read the decision.

Juarez v. Kmart

Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Five | Decision Date: March 9, 2011

Appellant Braulio Juarez and six other plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against the Kmart corporation and 17 companies that provided janitorial services at Kmart stores in California alleging they had not been paid overtime or provided with required meal or rest breaks. The trial court declined to certify the class, ruling it was not ascertainable, that common issues did not predominate, and that class treatment was not superior to individual lawsuits. Appellants now appeal contending the trial court erred when it declined to certify the class. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion and will affirm. Read the decision.

Purdham v. Fairfax County School Board

United States Court of Appeals,Fourth Circuit | Decision Date: March 10, 2011

Appellant James Purdham is employed as a safety and security assistant by the Fairfax County, Virginia, School Board. Purdham filed this action asserting that the School Board failed to pay him overtime wages for his services as the coach of a high school golf team, and thereby violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA or Act), 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq. After the close of discovery, the district court granted the School Board's motion for summary judgment. Whether Purdham is owed overtime wages hinges on whether, as a golf coach, he is to be deemed an employee or a volunteer within the meaning of the FLSA. We hold, for the reasons set forth within, that the School Board properly deemed Purdham a volunteer. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. Read the decision.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes

U.S. Supreme Court | Decision Date: March 29, 2011

Transcripts from oral arguments heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday March 29, 2011. Read the decision.

Randall v. Rolls-Royce Corporation

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit | Decision Date: March 30, 2011

The plaintiffs in this class action suit on behalf of more than 500 female employees of a Rolls-Royce plant in Indiana that manufactures aircraft, industrial, and marine engines appeal from the denial of class certification and the subsequent grant of Rolls-Royce's motion for summary judgment. (We refer to the defendants, all of which are affiliated corporations, collectively as "Rolls-Royce.") Read the decision.

Barboza v. West Coast Digital GSM, Inc.

Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four | Decision Date: March 24, 2011

This is the fourth appeal in this case, a class action against West Coast Digital GSM, Inc. (WCD), brought by employees alleging wage and hour claims. Our brief summary of the facts leading up to the third appeal is based in large part on our prior opinions. The class action complaint was filed in November 2004 against WCD and Victor Chapron, a director, officer, and managing agent of WCD.1 Plaintiffs moved for class certification in August 2005. WCD opposed the motion. The trial court denied certification, and plaintiffs appealed. Read the decision.

Marlo v. UPS, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit | Decision Date: April 28, 2011

Appeal and cross-appeal from a jury verdict awarding Marlo unpaid overtime, meal, and rest-period wages. UPS classified Marlo as an executive and administrative employee under California's Industrial Welfare Commission, thereby purporting to exempt him from the California Labor Code's overtime-pay requirements. The district court initially certified a class comprised of full-time supervisors employed by UPS from 2000 to 2004, and appointed Marlo class representative. In 2008, however, the court decertified the class on the ground that Marlo had failed to establish that common issues of law or fact predominated over individual ones. We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in decertifying the class. We address the remaining issues in a memorandum disposition filed contemporaneously with this opinion. Read the decision.

Alameda County Management Employees Assn. v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeals | Decision Date: May 10, 2011

Facing a multi-million dollar budget reduction for the 2009-2010 fiscal year, the Superior Court of Alameda County implemented a reduction in force. Among those laid off were a number of members of appellant Alameda County Management Employees Association (ACMEA), a labor organization representing certain Court employees in managerial classifications. Although these employees' seniority would have entitled them to demotions under the Court's personnel policies, in all but two instances, the Court denied their requests, citing the definition of seniority contained in a memorandum of understanding it had negotiated with another union. The Court determined that the seniority definition contained in the MOU applied to ACMEA's members and that under that definition, they could not exercise the demotion rights they would otherwise have enjoyed under the Court's personnel policies. Read the decision.

Lewis v. City of Chicago

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit | Decision Date: May 13, 2011

The City of Chicago must hire 111 black firefighter applicants and pay $30 million in loss-of-chance damages as a result of a discriminatory civil service examination. After receiving right-to-sue letters from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 1998, a group of unsuccessful applicants from the "qualified" pool of firefighter applicants filed a class action, alleging that the cutoff at 89 had a disparate impact on black candidates.Of the 6,000 applicants, 111 will be offered firefighting jobs. Back-pay for these 111 - estimated at $30 million - will be split among the remaining class members. Read the decision.

Perez v. Mountaire Farms, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals,Fourth Circuit | Decision Date: June 7, 2011

In a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) dispute, 29 U.S.C. sections 201 et seq., judgment of the district court in favor of plaintiffs is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) under the FLSA, time spent donning and doffing protective gear at the beginning and the end of each workday is compensable, while mid-shift donning and doffing is not; and 2) defendant's violations were not willful, thus triggering only a two-year statute of limitations for claims for back pay. Read the decision.

Areso v. Carmax, Inc.

Cal.App.4th | Decision Date: May 20, 2011

In 2005, CarMax implemented a new pay plan for its sales consultants in California. Under the California Pay Plan, CarMax paid Areso and other sales consultants pursuant to a formula which took into account the number of vehicles sold by a sales consultant and the average price of the vehicles or other products sold, decreasing the percentage paid to the sales consultant as the average sale price increased, and providing for an adjustment if the base payment totaled less than the target commissions. Leena Areso appeals from the trial court's grant of summary adjudication in favor of CarMax, Inc. (CarMax) in her class action lawsuit, which (among other causes of action) alleged violations of the Labor Code, including a failure to pay compensation for overtime. We affirm. Read the decision.

Wal-Mart Stores v. Betty Dukes

United States Supreme Court | Decision Date: June 20, 2011

We are presented with one of the most expansive class actions ever. The District Court and the Court of Appeals approved the certification of a class comprising about one and a half million plaintiffs, current and former female employees of petitioner Wal-Mart who allege that the discretion exercised by their local supervisors over pay and promotion matters violates Title VII by discriminating against women. Read the decision.

Salazar v. Butterball, LLC

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit | Decision Date: July 5, 2011

In this case we are asked to decide whether donning and doffing poultry processing workers' personal protective equipment is "changing clothes" under 29 U.S.C. 203(o). We hold that donning and doffing the PPE at issue in this case is changing clothes and that there is a custom or practice of excluding donning and doffing time from measured working time under the collective bargaining arrangement between the Union and Butterball. We, therefore, affirm the district court's ruling that Butterball did not violate the FLSA by failing to pay plaintiffs for donning and doffing time. Read the decision.

Smith et al. v. Bayer Corp.

U.S. Supreme Court | Decision Date: June 16, 2011

Respondent (Bayer) moved in Federal District Court for an injunction ordering a West Virginia state court not to consider a motion for class certification filed by petitioners (Smith), who were plaintiffs in the state-court action. Bayer thought such an injunction warranted because, in a separate case, Bayer had persuaded the same Federal District Court to deny a similar class-certification motion that had been filed against Bayer by a different plaintiff, George McCollins. The District Court had denied McCollins' certification motion under Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23. Read the decision.

Soderstedt v. CBIZ Southern California, LLC

Cal.App.4th | Decision Date: July 7, 2011

Plaintiffs and appellants appeal from an order denying class certification in the action they filed against their former employer, defendant and respondent CBIZ Southern California, LLC (CBIZ). As putative class representatives, they sought to certify a class of current and former employees assertedly misclassified by CBIZ as exempt from Californias overtime laws. The trial court ruled that a class action was not superior in light of the evidence submitted, finding that appellants failed to establish a predominance of common questions of law or fact, numerosity or adequacy. We affirm. Read the decision.

Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. v. Superior Court (Holland)

Cal.App.4th | Decision Date: July 7, 2011

Evans filed a class action complaint against Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. (Securitas), alleging wage and hour violations. We conclude that employees working consecutive overnight shifts that are not interrupted by unpaid, nonworking periods do not work split shifts, as defined in the Industrial Wage Commission's wage order No. 4-2001 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 11040), commonly known as Wage Order No. 4. Securitas is not entitled to summary adjudication, however, because it failed to show that plaintiffs have not worked split shifts in other circumstances falling within the wage order definition. We therefore will deny the petition and remand with directions. Read the decision.

Pruell v. Christi

United States Court of Appeals,First Circuit | Decision Date: July 14, 2011

Pruell and Gordon, employees of Caritas, purport to represent a class of over 12,000 Caritas hospital employees and claim that they and other class members were deprived of compensation for work performed during their meal break, for work performed before and after shifts, and for time spent attending training sessions. Accordingly, the district courts subject matter jurisdiction is currently in doubt, the case cannot proceed until that is established, and resolving that issue should be the first order of business on remand. Read the decision.

Cahoon v. Shelton

United States Court of Appeals,First Circuit | Decision Date: July 22, 2011

We are entering an era in which retirement benefits paid to public employees are subject to heightened scrutiny. In this case, a municipality became convinced that former firefighters and police officers who had retired on disability pensions were collecting a particular benefit (full reimbursement of certain medical expenses) without legal warrant. The municipality acted on this conviction and stopped paying the tab. A group of affected retirees sued to enforce continued payment. The district court entered summary judgment against all but three of the plaintiffs. The court then held a bench trial and resolved the remaining claims. The plaintiffs appeal the summary judgment rulings. We affirm. Read the decision.