Total Articles: 10
Court Limits Scope of FLSA Collective Action to Single Hospital in Nationwide Healthcare System
Although the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois conditionally certified a class of Utilization Review Case Managers who claimed they were misclassified as exempt employees, the court in Babych v. Psychiatric Solutions, Inc. et al. limited the class to employees at a single facility in Streamwood, Illinois where the two named plaintiffs worked. The ruling was particularly significant, as later court filings indicated that there are only four additional potential plaintiffs.
Maybe Not So Ho Hum at the Supreme Court: FLSA and Wal-Mart v. Dukes
In addition to denying cert on the USERRA hostile environment case (see yesterday's post), the Supreme Court yesterday also reversed an FLSA case from the 9th Circuit:
Dukes v. Walmart Fallout
Eveyone knows about the Dukes v. Walmart case (post is here). Well, Ellis v. Costco is another "big box" retailer case, in which female managers challenged Costco's promotion practices.
First Circuit Clears the Way for Skycaps to Pursue Nationwide Class Action Alleging Common Law Claims Involving Baggage Fees
In a three-judge panel decision issued on September 6, 2011 in Overka v. American Airlines, No. 10-8004, the First Circuit Court of Appeals let stand the expansive February 4, 2010 decision issued by U.S. District Court Judge William G. Young certifying a nationwide class of skycaps who claim that a $2 per bag service fee imposed by American Airlines unlawfully deprived them of tips. Judge Young’s 2010 class certification decision clears the way for skycaps at airports across the county to challenge American Airlines’ service fee practice on a class-wide basis on theories of unjust enrichment and tortious interference with contractual or advantageous relationship under the common law of 34 different jurisdictions from coast to coast.
What Wal-Mart v. Dukes Means to Employers
Nearly two months after the Supreme Court's decision in Wal- Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (June 20, 2011), employers and their attorneys are still parsing the meaning of the Court's opinion and its impact on future employment claims faced by employers. Had the Supreme Court ruled against Walmart, it would have been a decision with wide-ranging implications for large, national employers. But even in its ruling for Walmart, the Court has provided some lessons for all employers.
High Court Rules Against Certification Of Class
The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that a case brought on behalf of some 1.5 million female current and former employees of Wal-Mart should not have been certified as a class action. According to the Court, the plaintiffs were required to show that their claims depended on a common contention of such a nature that it was capable of classwide resolution - in this case, evidence that Wal-Mart "operated under a general policy of discrimination." But, the Court found that "[o]ther than the bare existence of delegated discretion, respondents have identified no `specific employment practice' - much less one that ties all their 1.5 million claims together."
Supreme Court Wal-Mart Decision Removes A Big Weapon From the Plaintiffs' Lawyers' Arsenal
C lass action litigation took a hit last week, when the U.S. Su- preme Court issued its decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, a sex discrimi- nation case brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Wal- Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes, U.S., No. 10-277, 6/20/11). The 5-4 majority clarified that not every aggregation of individual claims can proceed as a class action: rather, would-be class representatives must identify a question of law or fact that is com- mon to all members of the putative class, the resolution of which dis- poses of the case (26 CCW 190,
6/22/11).
Class Certification on Overtime Claim Denied to Accountants Subject to California Administrative Exemption
Affirming the denial of class certification in an action for unpaid overtime brought by former accounting associates, the California Court of Appeal has held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a predominance of common questions of law or fact. Soderstedt v. CBIZ Southern California, LLC, No. B224349 (Cal. Ct. App. July 7, 2011). The Court found that applying the administrative exemption (set forth in Wage Order 4-2001) in a blanket manner to the accountants “defeated any finding of predominance of common issues” because of the individualized inquiries needed to determine whether the exemption applied.
WAL-MART DECISION RAISES THE BAR ON CLASS ACTIONS
Before concluding the October 2010 Term, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling in the largest employment law class action in U.S. History, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, et al.. The decision created a stir because it reversed the lower courts’ certification of a class of approximately 1.5 million female employees. The lawsuit’s crux is that Wal-Mart discriminates against females based on their sex, particularly in promotion decisions. The Supreme Court found that the class members did not have enough in common under the applicable federal standards to proceed as a nationwide class action.
U.S. Supreme Court Overturns Certification in Wal-Mart's 1.5 Million Employee Lawsuit
On June 20, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the certification of a class of 1.5 million current and former women employed by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. I have discussed this case in numerous programs and, as I predicted, the Court ruled in a 5 to 4 majority that highly individualized claims of gender discrimination do not establish a class action based on statistics and very little proof of discrimination generally. Below are some comments about the decision for your review. If you have any questions or comments regarding this, or any other employment or labor law matter, contact Krukowski & Costello, S.C.'s educational services department at (414) 423-1330.
