Private Attorneys General Act Review – 2023 - Report - Page 21
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
issues did not predominate as to the question of misclassification. Id. at *29. The
evidence instead demonstrated that the recruiters in the proposed class worked across
four different schools within Pepperdine, had largely varying job duties, and exercised
different degrees of autonomy and discretion in their respective roles. Id. at *31. As
such, the court determined that the question of misclassification was not susceptible to
common proof, finding there was no evidence to suggest that “class members worked
with sufficiently standardized or performed in a consistent manner enough to decide the
misclassification question.” Id. at *32. On this same basis, the court also declined to
certify the question of uncompensated work hours, since the claims necessarily hinged
on the issue of misclassification. Id. at *34. On the issue of meal and rest break
violations, which depended in part on the misclassification analysis, the court also
determined that the plaintiffs’ evidence did not, “on the whole, indicate common
treatment of putative class members or common issues of fact,” such as whether the
work was structured so breaks could not be taken, or that there was a policy of
prohibited employees from taking breaks. Id. at *35. Finding the claims for waiting time
penalties and inaccurate wage statements derivative of the plaintiffs’ misclassification
claims, the court similarly determined such questions were not amenable to common
proof. Id. at *35-36. In addition to the main class, the court also denied certification of
the plaintiff’s proposed sub-class of employees who had waived their rights to sue as
class members. The court found insufficient evidence of predominance where the
signed releases had not been presented into evidence, there was no indication the
releases were similar, and, the court would be required to perform an individualized
inquiry of the circumstances surrounding the execution of each agreement. Id. at *3637. The court further determined that, because the named plaintiffs did not execute
releases, their claims were not typical of the sub-class, who would need to establish the
invalidity of the releases in addition to the other elements of their causes of action. Id. at
*38. Pepperdine also mounted a challenge to the adequacy of representation by one of
the named plaintiffs, who had allegedly made false statements and engaged in other
questionable conduct, calling her credibility into question. Id. at *45. Finding that the
“credibility issues threaten[ed] to overshadow the interests of the main class,” the court
agreed that this particular named plaintiff was an inadequate representative of the main
21
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
PAGA Litigation Review – 2023
