Duane Morris Class Action Review - 2023 - Report - Page 334
pay all wages due, and violations of California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et
seq., as well as penalties under the PAGA. Id. at *2-3. The court granted the plaintiff’s
motion to certify his rounding-time, meal period, and derivative claims. In certifying the
class for the “rounding policy” claim, the court reasoned that the plaintiff’s theory of
liability – that Terrace’s policy of rounding employees’ time punches to the nearest
quarter-hour increment resulted in employees’ systematic under compensation presented common questions of law and fact that predominated over the individualized
issues that might arise, including the calculation of damages to which each putative
class member might be entitled. Id. at *14. In so holding, the court rejected Terrace’s
argument that the “rounding claim” would necessitate an individualized inquiry into
whether any employee was ever disciplined for clocking-in too early before a shift, or
clocking-out too long after the end of their shift, in violation of Terrace’s express
policies. Id. at *16. With respect to the meal period claims, the court agreed that while
Terrace’s formal, written meal break policy may comport with California law, this fact
alone did not preclude class certification. Id. at *17. The plaintiff presented evidence of
numerous meal break violations, including missed, short, and late employee breaks. Id.
at *21. Although Terrace attempted to minimize the frequency and impact of these
violations, the court found the plaintiff’s evidence sufficient to establish a rebuttable
presumption that Terrace had a “de facto policy” that failed to provide putative class
members with compliant meal periods, and constituted a predominant question
appropriately resolved on a class-wide basis. Id. at *21-22. Having determined the
rounding time and meal period claims appropriate for class certification, the court also
certified the plaintiff’s derivative claims, concluding that they too involved common
questions of law or fact also suitable for certification. Id. at *23.
Where individualized issues predominate employees’ exempt misclassification claims,
courts will decline to grant class certification. A prime example is Edgecumbe, et al. v.
Pepperdine University, 2022 Cal. Super. LEXIS 51265 (Cal. Super. Ct. Aug. 22, 2022).
Two plaintiffs sought redress for wage and hour violations resulting from their alleged
misclassification as exempt employees. Specifically, the plaintiffs maintained that their
employer, the defendant Pepperdine University, misclassified them as exempt
“managers” or “assistant directors” despite their job duties as recruitment employees
failing to satisfy the requirements of exempt classification. Id. at *3. The plaintiffs filed a
class action seeking damages for missed meal and rest periods, unpaid overtime and
minimum wages, waiting time penalties, inaccurate wage statements, failure to maintain
records, unfair and unlawful business practices, and derivative penalties under the
PAGA. Id. The plaintiffs sought to certify a class of all current and former employees of
Pepperdine University who held the job title of Recruitment Manager, or performed
similar duties, and were also classified as exempt. Id. at *4. The plaintiffs also sought to
certify a sub-class of employees who had otherwise satisfied the requirements of a
class member, but who had accepted a settlement check from Pepperdine in return for
waiving their right to sue as a class member. Id. The plaintiffs argued that common
issues predominated as to the main class, including whether Pepperdine improperly
classified recruitment employees as exempt; whether class members worked
uncompensated hours; whether class members suffered meal and rest break violations;
and whether class members suffered wage and hour violations. Id. at *20. The court
declined to grant class certification on the misclassification issue. It ruled that common
333
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
