Arkansas Department of Veterans Affairs v. Okeke
2015 Ark. 275
| Ark. | 2015Background
- Plaintiffs (RNs, LPNs, CNAs) sued ADVA alleging violations of the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act for unpaid overtime based on (1) automatic 30-minute daily lunch deductions when employees allegedly worked through lunch, and (2) unpaid pre- and post-shift work performed off-the-clock.
- Plaintiffs sought class certification for all hourly, nonexempt nurses and CNAs employed by the two ADVA homes within the statutory period; the circuit court certified the class.
- ADVA contested certification, arguing lack of commonality, predominance, and superiority because application of time-reclamation policies and actual compensation varied person to person.
- At the certification hearing, testimonial evidence conflicted: some employees said they routinely worked through lunches and could not reclaim time; others said comp-form procedures were well-known and used.
- The trial court identified common questions (e.g., legality of auto-deduction, whether meal breaks were worked, adequacy of reclamation procedures) and ruled that commonality, predominance, and superiority were satisfied; the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Commonality: whether there are questions of law or fact common to the class | A single common issue exists: whether ADVA’s automatic lunch-deduction and reclamation policies are lawful and applied systemically | Claims require individualized inquiries into whether each employee actually used the reclamation process or was prevented from doing so, so no common question predominates | Affirmed: common questions exist (legality/reasonableness of policies) sufficient for Rule 23(a)(2) |
| Predominance: whether common issues predominate over individual ones | Liability turns on ADVA’s uniform policies (auto-deduction and reclamation), which are common and predominate; individual damage questions can be resolved later | Individualized facts (who worked through lunch, who used forms, who was compensated) will predominate and defeat class treatment | Affirmed: preliminary overarching issues regarding ADVA’s policies predominate; individualized damages can be addressed in a later stage if needed |
| Superiority: whether class action is a superior, efficient method | Class treatment is efficient because common preliminary issues can be resolved once and then cases bifurcated or decertified for individualized trials | Class trial would be unmanageable; due process requires individualized cross-examination and evidence on each member | Affirmed: class action is a superior, manageable method; court may decertify later if required |
| Use of FLSA/collective-action authority as persuasive law | Plaintiffs rely on federal decisions recognizing collective or class treatment for missed-break and off-the-clock claims | ADVA cites federal decisions saying auto-deductions are lawful where reclamation process exists and stresses differences between FLSA collective actions and Rule 23 classes | Court acknowledged federal authority but applied Arkansas Rule 23 standards and state precedent; federal distinctions limit persuasive value of some federal cases |
Key Cases Cited
- ChartOne, Inc. v. Raglon, 373 Ark. 275 (standard of review for class-certification determinations)
- Baptist Health v. Hutson, 2011 Ark. 210 (procedure and standards for class certification review)
- Beverly Enterprises-Arkansas, Inc. v. Thomas, 370 Ark. 310 (distinguishing federal “rigorous analysis” requirement)
- Tay-Tay, Inc. v. Young, 349 Ark. 675 (Rule 23 analysis context)
- Johnson’s Sales Co. v. Harris, 370 Ark. 387 (commonality requires only a single common issue)
- White v. Baptist Mem. Health Care Corp., 699 F.3d 869 (6th Cir. discussion of automatic meal-deduction systems under FLSA)
- Hill v. United States, 751 F.2d 810 (federal precedent on meal deductions cited in White)
- Helmert v. Butterball, LLC, 805 F. Supp. 2d 655 (comparability of AMWA and FLSA overtime requirements)
- Union Pac. R.R. v. Vickers, 2009 Ark. 259 (reversing certification where no single set of operative facts established liability)
- Rosenow v. Alltel Corp., 2010 Ark. 26 (predominance standard — common preliminary issues may permit class certification)
- Philip Morris Companies, Inc. v. Miner, 2015 Ark. 73 (example of appropriate class when a single, uniform corporate practice was at issue)
- Williamson v. Sanofi Winthrop Pharm., Inc., 347 Ark. 89 (denial of certification where individualized representations defeated commonality)
- Baker v. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., 338 Ark. 242 (denial of class certification where numerous individual issues required case-by-case resolution)