Private Attorneys General Act Review – 2023 - Report - Page 20
Thus, the Court of Appeal concluded that the plaintiff is an aggrieved employee with
PAGA standing and the general rule against splitting a cause of action does not apply to
the two types of PAGA claims. Id. at *3. The Court of Appeal thereby affirmed in part
and reversed in part the trial court’s ruling denying the defendant’s motion to compel
arbitration.
ii.
Decisions Regarding PAGA and Class Certification
In Cruz, et al. v. Health, 2022 Cal. Super. LEXIS 42883 (Cal. Super. Ct. May 9, 2022),
the plaintiff filed a class action against his former employer, Dignity Health d/b/a
Bruceville Terrace (Terrace) for wage and hour violations stemming from Terrace
allegedly utilizing a time rounding policy that systemically resulted in uncompensated
hours worked, as well as for failing to provide the plaintiff and other hourly employees
with full, uninterrupted meal periods in compliance with the California Labor Code. Id. at
*2. The plaintiff also brought derivative claims for inaccurate wage statements, failing to
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
20
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
PAGA Litigation Review – 2023
