From: FindLaw Opinion Summaries - Labor Law
(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Class Actions, Labor & Employment
Law) Grant of defendant's motion to decertify the class in
plaintiffs' suit alleging that the defendant-employer failed to pay
overtime wage is affirmed as substantial evidence supports the
trial court's conclusion that the individualized issues of
liability and damages will predominate over issues common to the
class if the overtime claims are tried as a class action.
Respond to this topic on your own blog
Click and press Ctrl+C to copy and paste this discussion on your blog or site
Related Articles
Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Assoc. Inc.
(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Class Actions, Labor & Employment
Law) In a suit brought by about 4000 current and former employees
against an employer, claiming that the company, which provides
security guard services throughout Southern California, denied meal
and rest breaks and failed to pay for overtime, trial court's
denial of their motion for class certification is affirmed in part,
reversed in part and remanded where: 1) order denying the motion
for class certification as to the meal break class and the rest
break class is affirmed as the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in finding common issues of law and fact did not
predominate over individual issues; and 2) order denying the motion
for class certification as to the overtime-pay class is reversed
and remanded.
Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Assoc. Inc.
(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Class Actions, Labor & Employment
Law) In a suit brought by about 4000 current and former employees
against an employer, claiming that the company, which provides
security guard services throughout Southern California, denied meal
and rest breaks and failed to pay for overtime, trial court's
denial of their motion for class certification is affirmed in part,
reversed in part and remanded where: 1) order denying the motion
for class certification as to the meal break class and the rest
break class is affirmed as the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in finding common issues of law and fact did not
predominate over individual issues; and 2) order denying the motion
for class certification as to the overtime-pay class is reversed
and remanded.
Barbosa v. Impco Tech., Inc.
(Cal. App., Labor & Employment Law) Trial court's grant of
defendant-employer's motion for nonsuit in plaintiff's wrongful
termination suit is reversed and remanded as the public policy in
favor of the employer's duty to pay overtime wages protects an
employee from termination for making a good faith but mistaken
claim to overtime.
Milam v. Dominick's Finder Foods, Inc.
(U.S. 7th Cir., Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law,
Labor & Employment Law) In six black produce clerks' racial
discrimination suit against their employer alleging that the
company classified two white women as produce clerks without proper
notice that would have enabled plaintiffs to claim hours from the
women because of their seniority, dismissal of the suit is affirmed
as defendant presented evidence that it was an innocent mistake and
plaintiffs presented no rebuttal nor evidence of damages.
United Steel, Paper & Forestry Int'l. Union v. ConocoPhillips Co.
(U.S. 9th Cir., Civil Procedure, Class Actions, Labor &
Employment Law) In an action seeking compensation for defendant's
alleged denial of employees' meal breaks, denial of class
certification is reversed where the district court abused its
discretion when it assumed, for the purpose of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23
certification analysis and without any separate inquiry into the
merits, that plaintiffs' legal theory would fail.
