The First District Court of Appeal’s recently published decision, Allison v. Dignity Health, is a win for employers holding that broad reliance on time-clock data and expert surveys is insufficient to sustain class-wide liability.
The trial court originally granted certification to a class of Registered Nurses on unpaid work, meal and rest break violation, and derivative claims. The Employer asserted that the employees chose to waive meal and rest periods arguing that there was no commonality among class members because individual inquiries were necessary to ascertain whether employees independently waived their breaks.
The Employer, undaunted, pursued discovery and, after 19 months, sought an order to decertify the class because discovery supported the argument that individualized issues made class treatment unmanageable. The Employer submitted conflicting deposition testimony from numerous class members, which identified a wide variation of employee experiences, including employees’ independent choices regarding their timekeeping and reporting of meal and rest periods. The Employer also argued that a comparison of employee timekeeping records with certain reports and call logs could not be used to establish a class without analyzing such information for each employee. And, the Plaintiff relied on an expert witness declaration that was supported by a survey of less than 15% of the putative class members.
The trial court agreed and decertified the class, echoing the Employer’s arguments and concluding, “[t]he problem is the ‘predominance’ issue, as individual issues swamp the common issues” and held that the Plaintiff’s expert report was unreliable and insufficient to support maintaining class certification.
Just last month, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decertification order, relying on CDF’s landmark case Duran v. U.S. Bank, and providing employers with further guidance to defeat future class action certification motions.
Key Takeaways
Allison v. Dignity Health illustrates that broad reliance on time-clock data and expert surveys should be insufficient to sustain class certification. Courts should closely scrutinize whether evidence is reflective of uniform workplace practices, and where there is evidence that class members’ experiences diverge—whether due to policy implementation differences or personal choices—class certification may collapse under the weight of individual issues specific to employees. However, employers should be aware that significant discovery efforts (and related expenses) may be required to provide the evidence to support decertification or denial of a class certification on this basis.
If you have questions about class action defense or other employment matters, contact the author or your favorite CDF lawyer.
