United States: Courts To Consider Theories, Not Facts, On Certification

Seyfarth Synopsis: In Lubin v. Wackenhut Corp., the California Court of Appeal reinstated an effort to certify a class of over 10,000 security officers required to sign on-duty meal period agreements. The Court of Appeal directed the trial court to look at the plaintiffs' theory of recovery when deciding if a class action is appropriate, not at whether and how often any violations actually occurred.

The Facts

The Wackenhut Corporation provides physical security services to businesses, gated communities, banks, schools, and other clients. Wackenhut required its California security officers to sign on-duty meal period agreements. Wackenhut then allowed its clients to dictate whether an employee actually had an off-duty or on-duty meal period on any particular shift.

Plaintiffs, former Wackenhut security officers, sued for a failure to provide off-duty meal and rest breaks, and for inadequate wage statements.

The trial court initially certified a class of over 10,000 security officers, and Wackenhut then provided discovery on a sampling of employees. As the case approached trial, Wackenhut moved for decertification in light of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, the 2011 U.S. Supreme Court case that criticized using a "trial by formula" to determine liability with statistical evidence. The trial court decertified the class (in 2012), on the grounds that individual issues predominated and that it would not be possible to conduct a manageable trial. Plaintiffs appealed the decertification order. The Court of Appeal then took its time, issuing its decision in November 2016.

The Court of Appeal's Decision

Plaintiffs contended that decertification was not warranted by a change in circumstances or case law, and that the trial court used improper criteria to grant the motion to decertify. Plaintiffs said the trial court should have considered their theory of liability in deciding whether certification was appropriate, not whether, factually speaking, liability actually existed on a class-wide basis. The Court of Appeal agreed with Plaintiffs, held that the trial court erred in granting the motion to decertify, and sent the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.

As to the issue of predominance, the Court of Appeal held that the "ultimate question" is whether the issues to try jointly, as compared to those to try separately, are so substantial that a class action would be the best method to try the claims. Significantly, the Court of Appeal focused on whether Plaintiffs' "theory of recovery" was amenable to class treatment, even if each class member must individually prove damages, and even if some class members had no damages at all.

The Court of Appeal relied on Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, a post-Dukes 2016 U.S. Supreme Court case, to conclude that statistics—if reliable to prove or disprove elements of the relevant claim—can establish class-wide liability. The Court of Appeal rejected Wackenhut's argument that Dukes entitles a defendant to present individual defenses to the merits of each class member's claim even if common evidence of wage and hour violations would suffice for class litigation. In such a case, the Court of Appeal held, defenses to individual claims are really questions of damages, which do not prevent certification. The Court of Appeal concluded that statistical sampling was appropriate here, where Plaintiffs offered it as a secondary source of proof and as a discovery manageability tool, rather than as the sole proof of liability, as in Dukes.

The Court of Appeal criticized the trial court for looking at whether the security officers actually received off-duty meal and rest periods (an issue of damages), as opposed to focusing on the  theory of liability: whether Wackenhut unlawfully failed to provide off-duty meal and rest periods. Wackenhut allegedly failed to "provide" off-duty meal periods when it required all employees to sign on-duty meal period agreements, without determining in advance whether the nature of the work at each site prevented an off-duty meal period. (That determination instead was made later, by the client.) Wackenhut also lacked a rest-break policy for some time, and then instituted a policy that required security officers to remain on call during their breaks. The Court of Appeal determined that the "common questions" for class certification were whether the theories of liability relying on those facts "have merit."

The Court of Appeal distinguished wage and hour cases from the Title VII claims brought in Dukes. Title VII permits employers to present evidence to defeat asserted legal violations—evidence the Court of Appeal found to be "necessarily" individualized. By contrast, there is no such burden-shifting procedure for claims alleging inadequate meal and rest periods, and thus the Court of Appeal found that any Wackenhut defenses could be presented on a class-wide basis.

The Court of Appeal rejected the trial court's finding that Wackenhut's affirmative defense, based on the "nature of the work," raised individualized issues. The Court of Appeal reached this conclusion despite "profound" differences among the worksites and nature of the work that various security officers performed. The Court of Appeal held that because Wackenhut did not analyze the nature of the work on an individualized basis before requiring employees to sign on-duty meal period agreements, it could not later rely on the individualized nature of the work to defeat class certification.

The Court of Appeal also held that the trial court applied the wrong evidentiary standard in granting decertification—plaintiffs seeking certification need not "conclusively establish" that a defendant had a policy that violated wage and hour laws. Rather, plaintiffs need only produce "substantial evidence" to support their theory of liability towards a predominant portion of the putative class members.

Finally, the Court of Appeal held that Plaintiffs could bring class claims as to inadequate wage statements where required elements under Labor Code section 226 were missing from all wage statements, because that fact alone was enough to prove that putative class members were injured. The Court of Appeal based this ruling on amendments to Section 226, which came after the trial court's decertification ruling. These amendments "clarified" that an injury under the statute is established simply by the existence of legal defects in the wage statement.

What Lubin Means for Employers

Lubin potentially burdens the defense for employers facing class litigation related to imperfect wage and hour policies. The use of statistics to help prove class-wide liability appears to be back in style in California courts. The decision places an even higher premium on the need to have written wage-hour policies that comply with the arcane requirements of the California Labor Code and the California Wage Orders, as an imperfect policy can provide a potential hook for plaintiffs to claim class-wide liability even when only some employees are actually hurt by it.

Further, when relying on any exception to wage and hour requirements (like the "nature of the work" exception justifying an on-duty meal period agreement), employers should do an individualized analysis if they later want to use individualized defenses to their advantage against class certification.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions