Duane Morris Class Action Review - 2023 - Report - Page 336
wide basis by comparing records from the timekeeping system with patient records, and
by relying on the plaintiffs’ declarations that they routinely began working before
clocking-in. Id. at *22. The defendants asserted that the plaintiffs’ method of proof was
flawed because many of the timestamps were associated with computer generated
entries (not human entries by workers) and that the audit logs were extremely
burdensome to run and compile because they had to be run individually for each
employee to determine whether they reflected human entries, which posed significant
manageability issues. Id. at *24. Moreover, the defendants established that they had a
policy against working off-the-clock. The court denied certification of the off-the-clock
sub-class because the plaintiffs did not have evidence of a systematic company policy
to pressure or require employees to work off-the-clock, and relying on the timekeeping
and patient records would require individualized analysis. Id. at *35. However, on
allegations that the defendants’ rounding policy for timekeeping violated overtime laws,
the court found that the question of whether the defendants maintained "a consistent
rounding policy that, on average, favors neither overpayment nor underpayment” was
susceptible to class treatment because the plaintiffs could prove their rounding claim
through efficient analysis of the timekeeping system and pay records. Id. at *47. Having
certified the rounding sub-class, the court allowed the derivative waiting time and wage
statement sub-classes to proceed. Id. at *48.
Similarly, in Estrada, et al. v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 237 (Cal.
App. 4th Dist. Mar. 23, 2022), the plaintiffs, a group of hourly workers at the defendants’
carpet manufacturing facilities, brought class claims and Private Attorneys General Act
(PAGA) claims primarily based on purported meal and rest break violations. Following a
bench trial and an appeal, the California court of appeal addressed several issues,
including: (i) the defendants’ policy of requiring workers to stay on premises during paid
meal breaks; and (ii) the trial court striking of the PAGA claims based on manageability
concerns. Regarding the meal break question, the defendants had a policy of paying
workers their regular wages during meal periods, but did not give them premium pay for
having to remain on the premises. The defendants argued the on-premises meal policy
was lawful because its workers were relieved of duty and paid wages during the meal
period. Id. at *19. The court of appeal disagreed. It opined that employers must afford
employees uninterrupted half-hour periods in which they are relieved of any duty or
employer control and are free to come and go as they please, and if an employer does
not provide an employee with a compliant meal period, then the employer must provide
the employee with premium pay for the violation. Id. at *20. The defendants’ fallback
argument that the amount of premium pay awarded by the trial court should be offset by
the regular wages it paid to workers during their meal periods was also rejected. The
court of appeal reasoned that premium pay is awarded for the non-economic injuries
suffered by workers due to deprivation of a compliant meal period, rather than
compensating employees for time worked. Id. at *23. Turning to the trial court’s
dismissal of the representative PAGA meal period claim due to unmanageability, the
court of appeal addressed the question of whether the PAGA has a manageability
requirement similar to class actions. Id. at *28. Recognizing that federal district courts
disagree as to whether claims under the PAGA can be struck based on manageability
concerns, the court of appeal stated that a representative action under the PAGA is not
a class action, but rather an administrative law enforcement action where the legislative
335
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
