California Labor &
Employment Law Blog
Class Certification Still Defeated Although Common Evidence of Non-Compliance
Apr 30, 2021

Class Certification Still Defeated Although Common Evidence of Non-Compliance

Topics: Class Actions, Court Decisions, Wage & Hour Issues

California employers may take solace in a recent unpublished decision upholding denial of class certification.  In Salazar v. See’s Candy Shops Incorporated, the California Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision to deny certification of a proposed class claiming that the employer failed to provide second meal breaks to employees working longer than 10 hours.  The Court concluded that there were too many individualized issues, and Salazar failed to propose an adequate trial plan to address those individualized issues.

Certification Denied for Lack of Commonality. Salazar argued there was adequate commonality based on the employer’s scheduling form which lacked a column to indicate second meal periods, claiming that the form sufficiently evidenced employees not receiving a second meal period.  The employer’s records, however, demonstrated that (1) it had a policy to provide second meal periods, and (2) approximately 24 percent of employees working on shifts longer than 10 hours actually took a second meal period.  Even though this did not represent a large percentage of second meal periods, the trial court nonetheless ruled that it was sufficient to show some class members were offered a second meal period, thus defeating commonality and requiring individualized proof of facts.  The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s ruling to deny class certification, based on lack of commonality. 

Certification Also Denied for Lack of Manageability.  The Court of Appeal also supported the trial court’s decision to deny certification as Salazar failed to identify an adequate trial plan that would have manageably addressed individualized issues.  Relying heavily on Duran v. U.S. Bank National Assn., the Court of Appeal emphasized that it was the plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate how individual issues can be resolved fairly and efficiently and, here, Salazar failed by vaguely promising the ability to prove liability without addressing the manageability of individualized issues.

This unpublished decision provides a beacon of hope for California employers confronted with class action issues.  Employers should work with their counsel to ensure that they have a legally compliant policy and attempt to comply with the policy, which may help defeat class certification one day.

About CDF

For over 25 years, CDF has distinguished itself as one of the top employment, labor and immigration firms in California, representing employers in single-plaintiff and class action lawsuits and advising employers on related legal compliance and risk avoidance. We cover the state, with five locations from Sacramento to San Diego.

> visit primary site

About the Editor in Chief

Sacramento Office Managing Partner and Chair of CDF’s Traditional Labor Law Practice Group. Mark has been practicing labor and employment law in California for thirty years. His practice has a special emphasis on the representation of California employers in union-management relations and handling federal and state court litigation and administrative matters triggered by all types of employment-related disputes. He is also adept at providing creative and practical legal advice to help minimize the risks inherent in employing workers in California. He recently named “Sacramento Lawyer of the Year” in Employment Law-Management for 2021 by Best Lawyers®.
> Full Bio   > Email   Call 916.361.0991

CDF Labor Law LLP © 2021

Editorial Board About CDF What We Do Contact Us Attorney Advertising Disclaimer Privacy Policy Cookie Policy