Demiko McCaster v. Darden Restaurants, Inc., 845 F.3d 794

Plaintiffs McCaster and Clark were intermittent hourly employees at Darden restaurants in Illinois (2004–2012) and brought a putative class action under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA) alleging failure to pay pro rata accrued vacation ("anniversary pay") at separation.
Darden paid "anniversary" vacation on a pro rata, length-of-service basis; prior to June 1, 2008 the policy covered all employees, after that date it covered only full-time employees (30+ hours/week).
McCaster alleged nonpayment under the pre-2008 policy; Clark conceded she received owed pay pre-2008 but claimed post-2008 she was denied vacation pay when she separated because she was part-time.
Plaintiffs sought class certification for all separated hourly Illinois employees from December 11, 2003 to the present who "did not receive all earned vacation pay benefits." The district court struck a paralegal declaration relied on by plaintiffs and denied class certification as an impermissible "fail-safe" class; an alternative class definition (without the "did not receive" clause) was also denied for failure to satisfy Rule 23.
The district court granted summary judgment to Darden on Clark’s individual IWPCA claim (because she was part-time and thus ineligible under the post-2008 policy). McCaster settled his individual claim but reserved appeal of the class-certification denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Clark has an IWPCA claim despite being part-time after June 1, 2008	Clark: an employer that awards prorated, length-of-service vacation to full-time employees cannot deny equivalent pro rata benefits to part-time employees	Darden: IWPCA forbids forfeiture of earned vacation but does not mandate that employers provide paid vacation; eligibility is determined by the employer's policy (which limited pay to full-time employees)	Held: No IWPCA violation. The Act prevents forfeiture of accrued earned vacation but does not require employers to extend paid-vacation eligibility to part-time employees; Clark was ineligible so no claim.
Whether class certification was proper (class definition & Rule 23 requirements)	Plaintiffs: class of all separated hourly Illinois employees subject to Darden’s vacation policy (or alternatively remove the "did not receive" language) to permit classwide adjudication of unpaid vacation claims	Darden: proposed definitions are either impermissible fail-safe or, if corrected, plaintiffs cannot show commonality/predominance because claims turn on individualized employment/payroll facts	Held: Denial affirmed. Original definition was an impermissible fail-safe. The revised class fails Rule 23 because plaintiffs did not identify a common unlawful practice or other classwide issue capable of resolving all claims; commonality, typicality, and predominance not met.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (class commonality requires a common contention capable of classwide resolution)
Messner v. Northshore Univ. HealthSystem, 669 F.3d 802 (7th Cir. 2012) (fail-safe class doctrine and refining class definitions)
Suchanek v. Sturm Foods, Inc., 764 F.3d 750 (7th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for class-certification discretionary rulings)
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (Rule 23(b)(3) predominance more demanding than commonality/typicality)
Golden Bear Family Rests., Inc. v. Murray, 494 N.E.2d 581 (Ill. App. Ct.) (length-of-service policy impermissibly conditioned payment on employment on a specific date — violation of anti-forfeiture rule)
Mueller Co. v. Dep’t of Labor, 543 N.E.2d 518 (Ill. App. Ct.) (explaining Golden Bear and applying pro rata/anti-forfeiture rule)