California Court of Appeal Denied Class Certification in a Wage and Hour Class Action Suit

California Court of Appeal Denied Class Certification in a Wage and Hour Class Action Suit

On January 04, 2022, the California Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court order which denied class certification in a wage and hour class action. Cirrincione v. American Scissor Lift, Inc., No. C092519.

Herein, an employee brought a class action complaint alleging multiple wage and hour claims, which included allegations that the employer engaged in unlawful rounding of employee’s hours worked as it did not have any rounding policy. The complaint also alleged the employer’s failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide meal breaks or premium wages in lieu thereof, failure to pay reimbursement expenses, and unfair competition. In October 2019, the plaintiff moved for class certification and asserted that “[t]here are at least 54 putative class members falling within the defined class.” But, failed to specify how many of these individuals were in each of the seven proposed subclasses. 

However, the trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion for class certification and held that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the common questions of fact and law would predominate over the individual questions, or that the plaintiff’s claims were typical of those of the proposed subclass. While deciding on this matter, the trial court focused on the predominance of common questions requirement. The Court of Appeal followed the same path of reasoning and did extensive scrutiny of the allegations put forth by the plaintiff relating to rounding. The Court said that in order to determine whether common or individual questions of law and fact predominate over the individual questions, the trial court must examine the issues framed by the pleadings and the law applicable to the causes of actions alleged and decide “whether the elements necessary to establish liability are susceptible of common proof or, if not, whether there are ways to manage effectively proof of any elements that may require individualized evidence.” The Court found that the trial court rightly stated that an employer in the state of California is entitled to round its employees’ work time if the rounding is done in a “fair and neutral” manner and which does not lead to failure to properly compensate an employee for the hours they have actually worked. Further, the Court noted that the California precedents do not indicate that the “absence of a written rounding policy constitutes a violation of California law where an employer has a practice of rounding its employees’ worktime.” Therefore, the Court said that the plaintiff’s theory of liability was not a recognized theory of legal responsibility.

The Court’s decision further supported that the rounding procedures as long as conducted in a fair and neutral manner and does not undercompensate employees over a period of time, is permissible under California law. The present case decision indicated that even in a wage and hour matter, the admittance of class certification is not warranted and can be dismissed if the employer can show that individual questions predominate over the common questions of fact and law.

Research and Writing By: Team Draft n Craft

Draft n Craft is a premier outsourcing firm that offers its legal, paralegal and medical support solutions to law firms, insurance companies, corporate and in‐house legal departments throughout the United States. The strength and openness in our relationship help our clients to maximize the benefits of outsourcing.

Want to achieve maximum ‘ROI’ at minimum cost, provide 24 x 7 hours of work environment with the highest standards of integrity, maintain utmost confidentiality and employ a diverse workforce that adds value to your day‐to‐day business?

Visit: www.draftnctaft.com  |  info@draftncraft.com  |  +1 6463676958 & 75