Benton v. Telecom Network Specialists, Inc.
220 Cal. App. 4th 701
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Plaintiffs allege California wage-and-hour violations (meal/rest breaks, overtime) against Telecom Network Specialists (TNS) in a wage-and-hour class action.
- Proposed class includes ~750 technicians, mostly hired by staffing agencies, with ~15% direct-hire; plaintiffs contend TNS is a joint employer of all.
- Trial court denied class certification, finding no common proof due to diverse working conditions and differing staffing policies.
- Plaintiffs offered declarations and documents showing TNS controlled day-to-day work and time reporting for contractor and direct-hire techs; staffing companies sometimes had no site presence or supervision.
- MSAs with staffing firms show TNS’s control over work sites and time-keeping; some MSAs later required staffing firms to inform workers of wage-and-hour rights.
- Court of Appeal reverses and remands to reconsider class certification, noting potential class-wide theories despite co-employer complexity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do common issues predominate for wage/hour class certification? | Benton contends TNS’s joint-employer status and policy failures are common proof. | TNS argues diverse work conditions and policies require individualized proof. | No, remand to reconsider with Brinker framework. |
| May Brinker’s framework permit class treatment of meal/rest break claims? | Uniform unlawful policy or lack thereof can be proved on class-wide basis. | Brinker requires individualized inquiries about breaks per day/site. | Brinker supports class-wide liability for lack of policy; remand for reconsideration. |
| Is diversity of staffing-company policies a standalone bar to certification? | TNS’s joint-employer status makes policy diversity irrelevant to liability. | Different staffing policies create individualized liability questions. | Not a dispositive bar; remand to assess plaintiff theory of recovery. |
| Should the overtime claim be certified alongside meal/rest claims? | Joint-employer liability extends to ensuring overtime payments; common proof possible. | Overtime damages may require individualized proof per staffing arrangement. | Remand to reconsider; separate evaluation needed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brinker v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. 2012) (sets Brinker framework for class treatment of wage-and-hour claims)
- Bradley v. Superior Court, 211 Cal.App.4th 1129 (Cal. App. 2012) (limits of individualized proof; Brinker guidance on class certification)
- Faulkinbury v. Superior Court, 216 Cal.App.4th 220 (Cal. App. 2013) (reaffirms Brinker approach to class certification in wage claims)
- Ghazaryan v. Diva Limousine, Ltd., 169 Cal.App.4th 1524 (Cal. App. 2008) ( lays standard for evaluating predominance and common issues)