Information and Commentary on Class Action Cases Affecting Employers

Employment Class Action Blog

Home | Employment Class Action Blog

The Supreme Court&rsquo;s Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes opinion has once again played Bo and Luke to a plaintiff&rsquo;s Boss Hogg. The plaintiffs in <a href="https://employmentclassactionreport.bakerhostetlerblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2013/07/09515585640.pdf">Raposo v. Garelick Farms LLC, Case No. 11-11943, D. Mass. (July 11, 2013)</a>, were truck drivers who made deliveries out of two locations operated by a dairy distribution company.&nbsp; The company maintained a policy of automatic deductions for meal periods from the drivers&rsquo; hours worked.&nbsp; This policy applied uniformly to all putative class members.&nbsp; So far, sounds like an uphill battle to defeat class certification, right? But, here&rsquo;s where the Duke(s) boys jump the collapsed bridge in slow motion over some unidentified pond and honk the General Lee&rsquo;s &ldquo;Dixie&rdquo; horn. Drivers who worked during a meal period were instructed to report this fact and were then either compensated for the time or permitted to take additional break time later in the week.&nbsp; In addition, the drivers&rsquo; meal periods were subject to different restrictions depending upon the location out of which they made deliveries. Riding shotgun in the squad car with Sheriff Ros-coe P. Col-trane, the plaintiffs resorted to a somewhat modified version of the tried-and-true &ldquo;but, those differences only pertain to damages&rdquo; mantra.&nbsp; This argument, however, was insufficient to jump the aforementioned pond.&nbsp; The Court held that the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is satisfied only where a class proceeding will generate a common answer for all putative class members in regard to a question that is central to the outcome of the litigation.&nbsp; Applying this standard to the plaintiffs&rsquo; request for class certification, the Court held that the auto-deduction policy itself was not per se unlawful.&nbsp; Rather, the Court observed, the lawfulness of the policy would depend for each class member upon whether (and why) he/she had worked through meal periods, and whether he/she had been compensated for the time.&nbsp; Acknowledging prior case law granting class certification despite the presence of such individual issues, the Court noted that these decisions all pre-dated Dukes and are now inapplicable.&nbsp; Thus, like Sheriff Roscoe, plaintiffs were left neck-deep in pond water with the siren whimpering to a halt.&nbsp; Asked for comment, the plaintiffs&rsquo; lawyer muttered, &ldquo;That Dukes, that Dukes!&rdquo;&nbsp; (EDITOR&rsquo;S NOTE: Ugh.) Bottom Line: Federal district courts are, in many cases, taking the Dukes admonishment to heart and applying a higher level of scrutiny to Rule 23 class certification motions.&nbsp; (Also, our sincerest apologies to Cooter, Daisy and Uncle Jesse--we strained this metaphor to its breaking point and still were not able to give you an appearance.) &nbsp;

Dukes Of Hazard: Uniform Auto-Deduct Meal/Break Policy Insufficient to Establish 23(a)(2) Commonality