Ariana Miles v. Kirkland's Stores, Inc., 89 F.4th 1217

Plaintiff Ariana Miles, a former Kirkland’s Stores employee, filed a class action alleging two company policies violated California labor law: requiring employees to remain on the premises during rest breaks and requiring bag checks after clocking out.
The Rest Break Policy, enforced from 2014 to 2018, prohibited employees from leaving the store premises during their rest breaks without supervisor permission.
The Bag Check Policy required visual inspection of personal belongings anytime employees left the premises, typically after clocking out.
Miles sought class certification for both claims, arguing Kirkland’s applied these policies uniformly.
The district court denied class certification for both claims, citing the predominance of individualized over common issues under Rule 23(b)(3).
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reviewed whether these issues were suitable for class-wide adjudication.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Class certification for Rest Break Claim	Rest break policy was uniform and unlawfully restricted all	Some evidence of non-uniform enforcement; not all stayed	District court erred; evidence showed uniform enforcement
	employees, making class-wide resolution appropriate	on premises during breaks	of policy from 2014–2018; reversed and remanded
Class certification for Bag Check Claim	Bag check policy was uniform and led to off-the-clock work	Policy not consistently enforced; wide variation existed	District court correct; individualized issues predominate;
	eligible for class-wide adjudication	in practice and necessity	affirmed denial of class certification
Relevant time period for rest break class period	Policy and practice controlled until 2018	Policy changed after 2018, enforcement not uniform later	Class period ends when uniform enforcement ceased (~2018)
Standard for class certification review	Misapplied predominance standard; ignored policy uniformity	Properly weighed evidence, considering variations	Predominance met for Rest Break, not met for Bag Check

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (articulates commonality/predominance requirements under Rule 23)
Amchem Prods. Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (explains Rule 23(b)(3) predominance standard)
Augustus v. ABM Sec. Servs., Inc., 385 P.3d 823 (Cal. 2016) (California employers must relinquish control over rest breaks)
Senne v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp., 934 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2019) (predominance usually not defeated by minor differences in employees' experiences)
Castillo v. Bank of America, NA, 980 F.3d 723 (9th Cir. 2020) (common issues outweighed if individual inquiries are substantial)