June 28, 2022

Volume XII, Number 179

Advertisement
Advertisement

June 27, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
Advertisement

Lawful Shmawful: Ninth Circuit Ignores Lawful Written Policy and Uses Statistical Sampling to Certify Class Based on Alleged “Unofficial Policy”

On September 3, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld certification of a class of approximately 800 nonexempt insurance claims adjusters who claimed they worked overtime without compensation despite the employer’s lawful written policy to pay nonexempt employees for all hours worked.

In Jimenez v. Allstate Ins. Co., the Ninth Circuit upheld certification by finding three common questions existed.  First, whether Allstate had an unofficial policy of discouraging employees from reporting overtime.  Second, whether the employees’ workload forced them to work hours in excess of eight in one day or 40 in one week and third, whether Allstate’s timekeeping method caused an underpayment of overtime.

Specifically, the court found that the adjusters were not responsible for preparing time sheets or clocking in and clocking out.  Rather, their time cards were set to a default of eight hours per day and 40 hours per week, and their supervisors could submit “deviations” or “exceptions” for hours worked outside of this schedule.  Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit determined that a common question existed regarding whether this timekeeping method led to the adjusters working unpaid overtime.

Notably, the Ninth Circuit held that liability on these issues, as well as the issue of whether the employer should have known that employees were working off the clock, could be resolved via statistical sampling.  Importantly, neither the Ninth Circuit nor the trial court orders specified how the proposed statistical sampling would actually resolve these issues.  Similarly, neither decision explains how the certified claims will be managed at trial.

Even so, the court held that statistical sampling could only get the plaintiffs so far.  Indeed, the court held that plaintiffs would be prohibited from utilizing representative testimony or statistical sampling during the damages phase of the case because a contrary finding would prevent the company from exercising its right to raise individualized defenses.

Based on the Jimenez decision, an employer’s lawful written policy is not enough to insulate it from class certification.  The Court’s decision also deviates somewhat from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Walmart Stores v. Dukes and Comcast Corp. v. Behrend and the California Supreme Court’s decision in Duran v. Superior Court.  All of these decisions instruct trial courts to examine how any purportedly unlawful policy is applied to the putative class when deciding to certify the class and how any individualized issues surrounding this application will be managed at trial.  While the courts continue to sort these issues out, employers can help themselves by ensuring that employees accurately track and report their hours worked.

© 2022 Proskauer Rose LLP. National Law Review, Volume IV, Number 265
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Anthony DiBenedetto, Labor & Employment Attorney, Proskauer Law Firm
Associate

Anthony DiBenedetto is an Associate in the Labor & Employment Law Department resident in the firm’s Los Angeles office where he represents employers in all areas of labor and employment law, including unlawful discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims, state and federal wage and hour class actions, trade secrets claims, and traditional labor law. Anthony also investigates and defends against whistleblower claims. In addition, Anthony counsels clients on compliance with state and federal employment laws and on developing, implementing and enforcing personnel...

310-284-4508
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement