Friend v. The Hertz Corporation
3:07-cv-05222
| N.D. Cal. | Feb 24, 2011Background
- Plaintiffs allege Hertz misclassified Location Manager 1 and Location Manager 2 as exempt from California overtime and meal/rest requirements, causing unpaid overtime and missing meal/rest periods.
- Plaintiffs also allege Hertz’s vacation policy barred carryover of accrued vacation hours in violation of California law.
- Plaintiffs seek class certification for all current and former Location Managers at Hertz airport locations in California, plus two subclasses by title.
- Hertz classified all such employees as executive and/or administrative under California law; plaintiffs contend the misclassification is suitable for class-wide determination.
- Court analyzes Rule 23 prerequisites and Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3); standing issue arises because no named plaintiff currently works for Hertz.
- Court denies the motion for class certification and denies Hertz’s motion to strike.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do exemptions negate common questions for the class? | Friend argues exemptions apply uniformly to all Location Managers | Hertz argues duties vary; exemptions require individualized analysis | Predominance not shown; no common issues |
| Is there standing to seek injunctive/declaratory relief under Rule 23(b)(2)? | Friends seek injunctive relief to prevent misclassification for the class | No current or future injury to named plaintiffs; no standing to seek injunctive relief | Lack of standing; 23(b)(2) not proper |
| Are misclassification claims appropriate for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3)? | Common issues predominate because exemption determination is fact-intensive but uniform policy may exist | Duty variations and fact-intensive inquiries defeat commonality; mini-trials required | Not appropriate; individual inquiries predominate |
| Is there a centralized policy establishing common exempt duties? | Evidence shows some uniform duties could yield common issues | Record shows wide variation in duties and time spent on tasks | No centralized policy; insufficient commonality |
Key Cases Cited
- Valentino v. Carter-Wallace, Inc., 97 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 1996) (four prerequisites of Rule 23(a))
- Zinser v. Accufix Research Institute, Inc., 253 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2001) (Rule 23(b)(2) appropriateness for declaratory/injunctive relief)
- Amchen Prod., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1997) (class action must protect all members; economies of scale)
- Walsh v. Nev. Dep't of Hum. Res., 471 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2006) (standing to seek injunctive relief on behalf of class)
- Hodgers-Durgin v. De La Vina, 199 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 1999) (standing requirement in class actions for injunctive relief)
- Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Overtime Pay Litig., 571 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2009) (centralized policy may support class certification)
- Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2009) (fact-intensive exemption analysis; need for individualized inquiries)
- Sepulveda v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 237 F.R.D. 229 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (variation in duties defeats class certification for misclassification)
- Campbell v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 253 F.R.D. 586 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (class certification of misclassified employees where duties sufficiently similar)
- Marlo v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 476 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (no class certification where supervisors' duties vary)
- Jimenez v. Domino's Pizza, 238 F.R.D. 241 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (denying certification due to varying manager duties)