Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Associates, Inc.
216 Cal. App. 4th 220
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Faulkinbury and Levene sued Boyd & Associates on behalf of ~4,000 security personnel for unpaid meal/rest breaks and improper overtime calculations.
- Plaintiffs sought three subclasses: Meal Break, Rest Break, and Overtime Class, deferring to wage-order compliance under IWC rules.
- Trial court denied class certification; appellate court initially affirmed denial for two subclasses and reversed for the Overtime Class, then Brinker decision prompted remand.
- California Supreme Court in Brinker clarified class certification standards and substantive rest/meal-break duties, including uniform policies and classwide liability.
- Court reconsiders in light of Brinker and holds all three subclasses’ claims are amenable to class treatment based on uniform policies and common proof.
- Court remands with directions to certify Meal Break, Rest Break, and Overtime Classes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Predominance under Brinker standard | Faulkinbury argues common issues predominate due to uniform policies. | Boyd contends individualized proof needed for damages or duties. | Common issues predominate; class certification warranted. |
| Meal Break subclass viability | Uniform on-duty meal-break policy can be adjudicated classwide. | Policy effects vary by post and duties; require individualized inquiry. | Classwide liability exist; meal subclass certifiable. |
| Rest Break subclass viability | Employer failed to authorize/permit rest breaks; uniform policy issue. | If no policy, defenses may be individualized. | Common proof supports rest-break subclass certification. |
| Overtime calculation including bonuses and reimbursements | Uniform deductions from overtime (uniform, gas, and bonus) require class treatment. | Damages/details may be individual; liability unclear. | Overtime class certifiable; damages determinations remain individualized. |
| Ascertainability of subclasses | Payroll and records identify class members; notices feasible. | Some questions may hinder ascertainability. | All three subclasses ascertainable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. 2012) (sets class certification framework and analyzes rest/meal duties)
- Jaimez v. Daiohs USA, Inc., 181 Cal.App.4th 1286 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (uniform policy shown, common issues predominate)
- Ghazaryan v. Diva Limousine, Ltd., 169 Cal.App.4th 1524 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (uniform policy and class treatment analysis)
- Bufil v. Dollar Financial Group, Inc., 162 Cal.App.4th 1193 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (class treatment for wage-order claims)
- Bradley v. Networkers International, LLC, 211 Cal.App.4th 1129 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (remand Brinker-like view on rest breaks and class treatment)
- In re Work Uniform Cases, 133 Cal.App.4th 328 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (uniform policy considerations for overtime calculations)
- Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court, 34 Cal.4th 319 (Cal. 2004) (statutory interpretation in wage/order contexts)
- Tidewater Marine Western, Inc. v. Bradshaw, 14 Cal.4th 557 (Cal. 1996) (DLSE and wage-order enforcement context)