FLSA Class Action Defense Cases-De Leon-Granados v. Eller & Sons: Eleventh Circuit Holds That Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA) Class Action May Be Certified Independent Of FLSA Class Action Claims

Where Class Action Asserted Claims Under Both Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA) and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), District Court did not Abuse its Discretion in Certifying AWPA “Opt-Out” Class Action After Conditionally Certifying FLSA “Opt-In” Class Action Eleventh Circuit Holds

Plaintiffs, migrant workers hired under the H2-B non-immigrant visa program, filed a class action in Georgia federal court against Eller & Sons Trees alleging violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). De Leon-Granados v. Eller & Sons Trees, Inc., ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 2456206, *1 (11th Cir. August 31, 2007). Plaintiffs sought class action treatment of their AWPA claims, but the district court denied the motion without prejudice; plaintiffs also sought preliminary certification of a class action under the FLSA, which the district court granted. _Id._ After conducting additional discovery, and after receiving only 5 “opt-in” requests from among the 1800 notices sent under the FLSA class action, plaintiffs again sought certification of a class action for the AWPA claims. _Id._ The district court granted the motion and certified a Rule 23(b)(3) “opt out” class action under the AWPA, _id._ Specifically, the district court certified a class action on behalf of more than 1,500 migrant workers admitted to the United States under the H-2B temporary foreign worker visa program, and sub-class of migrant workers who pledged collateral with Eller & Sons’ agents in order to obtain employment. _Id._, at *2. Defense attorneys filed an interlocutory appeal but the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiffs’ motion for class action treatment.

Eller & Sons is a small Georgia company that provides reforestation and forestry services; most of its employees plant trees throughout the southern U.S. from December through February. Eller hires people from Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico under the H2-B non-immigrant visa program, and is required to pay hourly wages as determined by the State Workforce Agency (SWA). De Leon-Granados, at *1. The class action complaint alleges that Eller was to pay an average hourly rate of $8.32, well above the federal minimum wage rate, but that it failed to do so. Id. The defense objected to class action treatment, arguing that a collective action under the FLSA would be a superior method of addressing the AWPA claims, but the district court disagreed. Id., at *2. The district court further found that plaintiffs had satisfied the requirements for class actions under Rule 23, id. The appellate court reviewed that ruling for abuse of discretion, id.

Defense attorneys first argued that the AWPA claims were premised on violations of the FLSA and “must therefore be adjudicated as an opt-in collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) instead of an opt-out Rule 23(b)(3) class action.” De Leon-Granados, at *2-*3. Under the FLSA, class members must affirmatively elect to “opt in” to the class action, but under Rule 23(b)(3) “all qualifying class members become party-plaintiffs unless they opt out of the action.” Id., at *3 (citations omitted). After rejecting defense claims that “the workers’ AWPA claims are truly FLSA claims in disguise,” the Eleventh Court concluded that the statutory language of the AWPA indicates Congressional intent to allow such claims to be brought as Rule 23 class actions. Id. The Circuit Court concluded at page *3, “If Congress intended § 216(b) to be the exclusive remedy for violations of the AWPA’s wage payment provisions, it would have also said so.” It therefore held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying an AWPA class action, id. (The author notes that there is case law holding that it is improper to certify “opt in” and “opt out” classes as part of the same action, but it does not appear that defense attorneys asserted this objection.)

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

FLSA Class Action Defense Cases-Parker v. Rowland: Minnesota District Court Adopts Eleventh Circuit Holding That Conditional Class Action Certification Of FLSA Class Action Requires Proof That Other Class Members Want To Opt In

As Matter of First Impression in Eighth Circuit, Plaintiff in FLSA Class Action must Establish that Other “Similarly Situated” Putative Class Members Desire to “Opt In” to the Lawsuit as a Prerequisite to Conditional Class Certification Minnesota District Court Holds

Two former truck drivers filed suit against regional package delivery company Rowland Express for violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and Minnesota and Iowa state law, alleging that Rowland improperly classified its drivers as independent contractors instead of employees, thereby denying them overtime pay. Parker v. Rowland Express, Inc., 492 F.Supp.2d 1159, 1162-63 and n.1 (D.Minn. 2007). Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the court conditionally certify a class action under FLSA (technically a “collective action”) so that other Rowland employees may be provided an opportunity to “opt in” to the putative class action. Id., at 1162. Defense attorneys opposed class action treatment, arguing Eleventh Circuit precedent that conditional class certification requires a showing that other class members desire to “opt in” to the lawsuit. The district court denied the motion, holding as a matter of first impression in the Eighth Circuit that conditional class action certification and notice to putative class members is not warranted absent evidence that other similarly situated class members wish to join the action.

The class action complaint alleged that Rowland previously classified its drivers as “employees” and paid them overtime, but that after it became affiliated with DHL it changed the classification of its drivers to “independent contractors” and ceased paying overtime. Parker, at 1162-63. After conducting limited discovery, plaintiffs moved for an order conditionally certifying a FLSA class action on the grounds that plaintiffs “are ‘informed and believe’ that other drivers worked in excess of 40 hours per week and did not receive overtime compensation.” Id., at 1163. Defense attorneys opposed class action treatment, arguing in part that plaintiffs “failed to show that other ‘similarly situated’ individuals desire to opt in to this litigation,” id.

After discussing FLSA class actions and the FLSA’s requirement that the other employees be “similarly situated” to the plaintiffs but failure to define that term, see Parker, at 1163-64, the district court described the two-stage process generally followed in determining whether the plaintiffs are “similarly situated” to other putative class members: the first stage, known as the “notice stage,” involves a preliminarily determination “usually based only on the pleadings and any affidavits which have been submitted” as to whether notice of the class action should be provided in order to give putative class members an opportunity to “opt in”; the second stage involves a more in-depth analysis by the court into whether the plaintiffs are in fact similarly situated to the putative class, id., at 1164. At the first stage, the plaintiffs’ burden “is not onerous” but neither is it “invisible,” id.

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

Circuit City Class Action Defense Case-Gentry v. Superior Court: California Supreme Court Invalidates Class Action Waiver In Arbitration Clause As Against Public Policy And Concludes Arbitration Clause Procedurally Unconscionable Despite Right To Opt Out

Class Action Lawsuits are More Effective in Redressing Employee Labor Law Claims thus Rendering Class Action Waiver in Arbitration Clause Unenforceable, and Arbitration Clause was Procedurally Unconscionable Despite 30-Day Window to Opt Out of Entirely Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program California Supreme Court Holds

Plaintiff filed a putative class action in California state court against Circuit City alleging violations of the state’s unfair and deceptive business practices statutes and labor code arising out of its misclassifying employees as exempt in order to deny them overtime pay. Gentry v. Superior Court, ___ Cal.4th ___, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 773, Slip Opn., at 2-3 (Cal. August 30, 2007). Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action and compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause with a class action waiver. The trial court found the arbitration clause and the class action waiver to be fully enforceable, and granted the defense motion. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court’s reasoning, but the California Supreme Court reversed.

At the time Circuit City hired plaintiff, he was provided with written materials that included the company’s “Dispute Resolution Rules and Procedures”; the program gave employees “various options, including arbitration, for resolving employment-related disputes” and provided that if the employee elected arbitration – a choice that was subject to a class action arbitration waiver – then the company could compel the employee to dismiss any civil action in favor of arbitration. Gentry, at 3. As the Supreme Court explained, “The packet included a form that gave the employee 30 days to opt out of the arbitration agreement. [Plaintiff] Gentry did not do so.” Id. Both the trial court and the appellate court were influenced by the fact that plaintiff failed to opt out of the arbitration program within the 30-day window, despite the fact that there would have been no adverse employment ramifications had he done so. Id., at 3-4. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed.

In a strangely vague and sharply split opinion, the Supreme Court held that class action arbitration waiver provisions in overtime cases “may be contrary to public policy,” Gentry, at 5 (italics added). But despite all of its hedging, the Court seems to be clear that anything short of an attorney-supervised waiver would not withstand scrutiny, explaining at page 12:

Arbitration Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-Arias v. Superior Court: California Court Holds State Unfair Competition Law (UCL) Representative Claims Must Be Brought As Class Action Because UCL Suits Must Comply With Class Action Statute

Because California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) Requires Compliance With State’s Class Action Statutes, UCL Representative Claims Must be Brought as Class Action Lawsuits California Court Holds, but PAGA (Private Attorney General Act) Representative Actions under Labor Code need not Satisfy Class Action Pleading Requirements Plaintiff filed suit in California state court against his employer, Angelo Dairy, and others alleging, inter alia, that he was not paid overtime and did not receive meal and rest breaks required by law; the action purported to be a representative action under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) contained in the state’s labor code.

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

Class Action Defense Cases-In re Farmers Insurance Exchange: Ninth Circuit Rejects “$3,000 Rule” Created By District Court In FLSA Class Action

In Class Action Alleging Violations of Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), $3,000 Rule Crafted by District Court as Exception to Overtime Pay Lacked Support in Record and was Unworkable in Practice Ninth Circuit Holds

Plaintiffs, former and current insurance claims adjusters for Farmers Insurance Exchange, filed a class action against their employer alleging that they were misclassified as exempt employees and denied overtime pay in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In re Farmers Ins. Exch., Claims Representatives’ Overtime Pay Litig., 481 F.3d 1119, 1124 (9th Cir. 2007). The district court established a “$3,000 in claims paid per month” rule and, applying that test, concluded that some of the claims adjusters were exempt but others were not. Id. Before the Ninth Circuit, all parties agreed that the district court’s $3,000 rule “is neither workable nor supported by the evidence.” Id. The Circuit Court agreed, holding that “all of the adjusters in this case are exempt,” id. The Ninth Circuit stated that “For more than 50 years, the Department of Labor has considered claims adjusters exempt from the Fair Labor Standard Act’s overtime requirement.” Id.

For purposes of this article, we address solely the “$3,000 rule” creatively crafted by the district court. On this point, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court’s rule not only “lack[ed] support in the record,” but is “simply unworkable in practice.” In re Farmers, at 1132. The Circuit Court explained at page 1132,

Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-Villanueve-Bazaldua v. TruGreen: Delaware Federal Court Denies Conditional Class Action Certification Of FLSA Class Action Holding Plaintiff Not “Similarly Situated” to Putative Class

Plaintiff in FLSA Class Action Must Make “Some Factual Showing” that Similarly-Situated Requirement is met in order to Obtain Conditional Certification of Class Action Treatment Delaware Federal Court Holds

Plaintiff filed a labor law class action against TruGreen – a lawn and landscaping company that hires non-immigrants for seasonal work under the federal H-2B visa program – alleging violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and various state law claims. Villanueve-Bazaldua v. TruGreen Ltd. Partners, 479 F.Supp.2d 411, 413 (D. Del. 2007). Plaintiff moved to conditionally certify a class action; defense attorneys objected to class certification on the ground that plaintiff was not “similarly situated” to the putative class members and that, in any event, the company was not legally required to reimburse the expenses underlying the class action claims. The district court agreed with the defense and refused to certify an FLSA class action.

The class action complaint alleged that he was “recruited” in Mexico and that TruGreen promised to pay him $11.34 per regular hour and $17.01 per overtime hour to work for the company, and that in reliance on these promises, plaintiff incurred the expense of obtaining an H-2B visa and of traveling to and from the U.S. TruGreen, at 413. “These expenses included the cost of obtaining a Mexican passport, a $100 visa application fee, a $100 visa issuance fee, a $6 border crossing fee, a $155 administrative fee paid to TruGreen’s agent for processing the visa paperwork, and transportation expenses from the point of recruitment to the place of work in the United States.” Id. According to the class action allegations, these expenses constituted “de facto deductions from the first and last weeks of their wages, causing them to earn less than the wages required by the FLSA.” Id., at 413-14. Plaintiff argued that class action treatment was appropriate because Arriaga v. Florida Pacific Farms, 305 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2002), holds that “visa and transportation costs incurred by foreign visa workers are de facto wage deductions from the workers’ first and last weeks’ wages for purposes of the FLSA” and because “all of TruGreen’s H-2B workers present the same claim that the FLSA requires reimbursement of those costs up to the mandated FLSA wage level,” id., at 414. Defense attorneys opposed conditional certification of a class action arguing that (1) it is not required to bear the visa and transportation costs of its H-2B employees, (2) plaintiff is not “similarly situated” to the putative class members because TruGreen provided him with transportation back to Mexico, and (3) “certain H-2B workers did receive compensation for various incidentals arising from their temporary employment.” Id.

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

FLSA Class Action Defense Case-Sherrill v. Sutherland Global: New York Federal Court Holds Conditional Certification Of FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act) Collective Action Warranted But Limits Scope Of Proposed Class

Plaintiffs in Class Action/FLSA Collective Action Alleging Labor Law Violations Adequately Supported Motion for Conditional Certification under FLSA of Putative Class Including Non-New York Employees, but Limits Class to Telemarketers Rather than All Hourly Employees

Two plaintiffs filed a class action and FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act) collective action lawsuit against telemarketing service provider Sutherland Global – which operated 9 call centers in New York, one in California and one in Virginia – alleging various state and federal labor law violations, after which 38 former telemarketing agents sought court approval to “opt in” to the class action/FLSA lawsuit as named plaintiffs. Sherrill v. Sutherland Global Servs., Inc., 487 F.Supp.2d 344, 346-47 (W.D.N.Y. 2007). Plaintiffs moved the court to conditionally certify an FLSA collective action and to provide notice to putative class members of their right to opt in, id., at 346. Defense attorneys did not oppose the motion, but requested the right to approve the notice, asked the federal court to limit the scope of the proposed class, and asked the federal court to set an “opt-in” deadline, id., at 351. The defense also requested that plaintiffs’ lawyer remove “inaccurate statements” from counsel’s website, but plaintiffs “voluntarily agreed to make the necessary corrections” rendering the issue moot, id. at 351 n.4. The district court granted plaintiff’s motion in part, agreeing with defense attorneys that notice should be sent only to current and former telemarketing agents rather than all Sutherland hourly employees, and

The class action/FLSA complaint alleged three labor law violations. First, that Sutherland’s timekeeping system automatically deducted 60 minutes for lunch from each employee’s daily pay, regardless of whether the employee took a lunch break or worked during part of their lunch break. Sherrill, at 347. The complaint further alleged that the workload and the pressure to meet performance goals required that telemarketing agents frequently work during lunch periods, and as part of their motion, plaintiffs submitted declarations supporting these allegations, id. Second, the class action alleged that Sutherland required its telemarketers to work “off the clock” by arriving 15-30 minutes before their scheduled shift but encouraging them not to “log on” until at or near their scheduled start time. Id. Finally, plaintiffs alleged – and in their motion introduced evidence supporting – that Sutherland improperly excluded commissions and bonuses in calculating its employees’ appropriate overtime rates, using instead the “regular rate of pay” for each employee “result[ing] in application of a lower overtime rate than would apply were commissions and bonuses properly included in the rate of pay,” id., at 348.

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

Class Action Defense Cases-Hnot v. Willis Group: New York Federal Court Denies Defense Motion To Reconsider Order Certifying Class Action Because New Second Circuit Authority Governing Class Action Certification Had Been Satisfied

Second Circuit Opinion in In re IPO Class Action Enunciating new Standards for Certification of Class Actions Warranted Reconsideration of Order Certifying Class Action but not Decertification of Class Action because new Standards were met New York Federal Court Holds

Female employees filed a labor law class action against Willis Group and its affiliates alleging gender discrimination. Hnot v. Willis Group Holdings Ltd., 241 F.R.D. 204, 206 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). The district court granted plaintiffs’ motion to certify the litigation as a class action, see Hnot v. Willis Group Holdings Ltd., 228 F.R.D. 476 (S.D.N.Y. 2005); defense attorneys sought reconsideration of the class certification order and decertification of the class, arguing that under the Second Circuit opinion in In re Initial Pub. Offering Sec. Litig., 471 F.3d 24 (2d Cir.2006) (In re IPO) — a summary of which may be found here — which issued after the class action had been certified, plaintiffs failed to establish commonality under Rule 23(a), and that class action treatment was “inappropriate under Rule 23(b)(2),” 241 F.R.D. at 206. Specifically, the defense argued that a plaintiff is now required to do more than simply make “some showing” that the elements of Rule 23 have been met, id., at 207. The district court denied the defense motion, concluding that the requirements of Rule 23 had been met and that the lawsuit should properly proceed as a class action.

Plaintiffs filed their putative class action in 2001 “on behalf of a class of high-level female employees…alleging illegal employment discrimination on the basis of sex.” Hnot, at 206. In response to plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class action, defense attorneys argued that Rule 23(a)’s commonality requirement had not been satisfied. Id. Plaintiffs’ responded that “a common policy of vesting regional and local officers with unfettered discretion in making promotion and compensation decisions, result[ed] in discrimination against women in high level positions.” Id. (citation omitted). Each side submitted expert reports, which the district court considered as they pertained to the issue of commonality, id., and ultimately concluded that “plaintiffs’ evidence was ‘certainly adequate to establish that whether or not Willis’s promotion and compensation policies subject class members to discrimination is an issue common to all class members,’” id., at 207 (citing 228 F.R.D. at 483).

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

Class Action Defense Cases-Belaire-West v. Superior Court: California Appellate Court Subordinates Employees’ Privacy Rights To Class Action Plaintiff’s Request For Their Personal Contact Information

Court Expands Holding in Pioneer Electronics to Employer-Employee Relationship and Essentially Grants Class Action Plaintiffs Unrestricted Access to Personal Contact Information of Putative Class Members Prior to Certification of Class Action and Without any Showing of Likelihood that Class Action will be Certified

Plaintiffs filed a labor law class action against their former employer, Belaire-West Landscaping, alleging wage and hour violations. Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court, __ Cal.App.4th __, 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 197, 198 (Cal.App. 2007). Prior to certification of the litigation as a class action, plaintiffs moved to compel Belaire to produce the names and addresses of all current and former employees; defense attorneys objected on the grounds of the absent class members’ right to privacy under the California Constitution. Id. The trial court granted the motion, and approved a proposed notice to putative class members that required them to affirmatively object in writing to the production of their contact information to plaintiffs, id. The defense sought a writ of mandate, and the Court of Appeal issued an order to show cause why the letter to absent class members should not require an “opt-in privacy notice procedure,” id., at 199-200. Ultimately, the appellate court denied the writ, holding that “the opt-out notice adequately protects the privacy rights of the current and former employees involved.” Id., at 199.

We have previously reported on the recent opinion by the California Supreme Court in Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court, 40 Cal.4th 360 (Cal. 2007) – that summary, and the text of the Court’s opinion, may be found here. In brief, Pioneer approved of the type of notice at issue in Belaire-West because the class members already had taken the step of affirmatively contacting the defendant and providing their contact information for the express purpose of having someone contact them to redress their concerns. The Court of Appeal summarized the Pioneer decision as holding that “under the circumstances presented, an opt-out notice was sufficient to protect the privacy rights of the DVD purchasers.” Belaire-West, at 200 (citation omitted). The question is whether the facts of Belaire-West are similar to “the circumstances presented” in Pioneer.

The appellate court recognized the significant differences between the cases. For example, the Court of Appeal stated that the Supreme Court “focused on the fact that the consumers in question had voluntarily disclosed their contact information to Pioneer in seeking redress of their grievances concerning a Pioneer DVD player,” Belaire-West, at 200-01, and at page 201 quoted the Supreme Court’s reasoning as follows:

Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Case-Brieger v. Tellabs: Illinois Federal Court Denies Defense Motion For Summary Judgment In ERISA Class Action

General Release Executed by Employees at Termination was Valid Under ERISA but Class Action Claims Fell Within Carve-Out Provision in Release, and Former Plan Participants have Standing to Prosecute Class Action Alleging Breach of Fiduciary Duty Against Plan Administrators Illinois Federal Court Holds

Plaintiffs filed a putative ERISA class action lawsuit against Tellabs alleging breach of fiduciary duty “by permitting investments in Tellabs securities when it was imprudent to do so and by disseminating misleading information to Plan participants about the prudence of investing in Tellabs securities.” Brieger v. Tellabs, 473 F.Supp.2d 878, 880 (N.D. Ill. 2007). Defense attorneys moved for summary judgment on two grounds: (1) the putative members of the class action had executed general releases which barred them from prosecuting the class action complaint, and (2) plaintiffs lacked standing to prosecute the class action because they had cashed out of the Plan. Id., at 883. The district court denied the motion.

Briefly, in December 2000, Tellabs announced a $100 million sales agreement with Sprint, and in January 2001 announced increased sales and expressed optimism about the future. For purposes of the period covered by the class action complaint, in February 2001 Tellabs common stock hit a high of $67 per share. However, the following month Tellabs lowered its revenue and earnings expectations for 2001, and in April 2001 it announced that it would not meet its lowered expectations. “By April 16, 2001, Tellabs stock had declined to $35.50 per share.” Brieger, at 881. The stock recovered to $42 per share in May 2001, but fell to $16 by June 2001 and plunged to under $1 by April 2003. Id., at 881-82. Tellabs implemented workforce reductions, and in exchange for severance benefits each employee executed a general release which provided that the employee released Tellabs – including its “officers, directors, agents, employees, employee benefit plans (and their plan fiduciaries and administrators)” – “from any and all claims of any kind relating to or arising out of Employee’s employment or the termination of that employment with Tellabs, Inc. or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates.” Id., at 882.

Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized