Alex Reinig v. RBS Citizens NA
912 F.3d 115
3rd Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiffs were Mortgage Loan Officers (MLOs) at Citizens Bank who allege an unwritten, companywide "policy-to-violate-the-policy" that required or encouraged off-the-clock overtime while discouraging reporting.
- On paper MLOs were non-exempt, paid $11.50/hr base, eligible for overtime at time-and-a-half, and required to pre-approve overtime and submit electronic timesheets approved by producing sales managers.
- Three former MLOs filed suit (FLSA and state-law claims); the district court conditionally certified an FLSA collective and 351 employees opted in. Plaintiffs later moved to certify ten state-law subclasses under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
- A Special Master recommended denying decertification of the FLSA collective, certifying the Rule 23 state-law subclasses, and denying summary judgment on the off-the-clock claims; the District Court adopted the reports.
- Citizens appealed under Rule 23(f), challenging Rule 23 class certification; it also sought review of the district court’s final FLSA collective certification via pendent appellate jurisdiction.
- The Third Circuit vacated the Rule 23 certification for insufficient, non‑rigorous analysis and defective class-definition language, and declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over the FLSA certification (leaving the FLSA certification undisturbed).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court adequately defined the class and the claims under Rule 23(c)(1)(B) | Plaintiffs: class and claims were defined in the amended complaint and Special Master reports | Citizens: district court order failed to state a readily discernible, clear, precise class definition and list of class claims/issues | Court: certification order deficient; vacated and remanded for a clearly articulated class definition and claims list |
| Whether Rule 23(a) commonality and Rule 23(b)(3) predominance were satisfied by plaintiffs’ representative evidence | Plaintiffs: testimony from ~two dozen MLOs shows a common, companywide practice and is sufficiently representative to prove liability class-wide | Citizens: testimony is diverse, localized, often inconsistent; evidence insufficient to show companywide policy or corporate knowledge; individual issues predominate | Court: district court did not perform the required rigorous analysis or cite specific record support; cannot conclude that predominance/commonality were met; vacated and remanded for rigorous assessment |
| Whether the appellate court may review the district court’s final FLSA collective certification under pendent appellate jurisdiction | Plaintiffs: FLSA and Rule 23 analyses are distinct; pendent jurisdiction not warranted | Citizens: reviewing FLSA certification is necessary for meaningful review of Rule 23 order | Court: declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction; Rule 23 certification is not "inextricably intertwined" with FLSA collective certification; left FLSA certification undisturbed |
| Whether the FLSA collective certification should be reviewed on this appeal | Plaintiffs: not reviewable here; collective action certification is non-appealable except in narrow circumstances | Citizens: sought review as intertwined with Rule 23 issues | Court: refused to review FLSA certification, noting different standards ("similarly situated" vs. Rule 23), risk of expanding interlocutory review; left FLSA ruling intact |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (class-action commonality requirement and limits on class certification)
- Marcus v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 687 F.3d 583 (3d Cir. 2012) (requirement that district court clearly articulate class definition and claims)
- Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036 (2016) (use of representative evidence to prove hours worked and predominance analysis)
- Zavala v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 691 F.3d 527 (3d Cir. 2012) (FLSA "similarly situated" standard for collective actions)
- In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305 (3d Cir. 2008) (rigorous Rule 23 analysis and overlap with merits)
- Myers v. Hertz Corp., 624 F.3d 537 (2d Cir. 2010) (declining pendent appellate jurisdiction over FLSA certification when issues are distinct)
- Symczyk v. Genesis Healthcare Corp., 569 U.S. 66 (2013) (distinctions between FLSA conditional certification and Rule 23 class certification)
- Wachtel v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 453 F.3d 179 (3d Cir. 2006) (Rule 23(c)(1)(B) requires a readily discernible class definition and list of claims/issues)
- Kershner v. Mazurkiewicz, 670 F.2d 440 (3d Cir. 1982) (limits on pendent appellate jurisdiction)