Hall v. Rite Aid Corp. CA4/1
226 Cal. App. 4th 278
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Hall, a former Rite Aid cashier, sued on behalf of herself and others for penalties under Labor Code section 2699 for failing to provide seats during check-out work, violating Wage Order 7-2001 section 14.
- The trial court initially certified the class, but then decertified after Rite Aid introduced new evidence and argued the issue required individualized inquiries.
- Hall sought to proceed as a class action under Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court framework, asserting a uniform policy of requiring standing at the register violated section 14.
- Rite Aid contended the nature of the job varied across stores and duties, so individual issues would predominate and certification was inappropriate.
- The trial court held that the 'nature of the work' analysis looked to the job as a whole, thereby precluding class treatment, and denied Hall’s request for a representative PAGA action.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the decertification was improper because the court erred by addressing merits rather than amenability to class treatment, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether decertification was proper under Brinker framework | Hall: focus on amenability to class treatment, not merits | Rite Aid: issues require individualized inquiries under job-wide analysis | Reversed; decertification improper; focus remains on amenability to class treatment |
| Whether the trial court erred by resolving the merits of Hall's theory at decertification | Hall: merits should be deferred; Brinker requires refusal to entertain merits | Rite Aid: Brinker permits some merits review when threshold questions depend on it | Reversed; merits consideration improperly influenced certification ruling |
| Whether section 14’s 'nature of the work' standard was correctly interpreted for class treatment | Hall: analysis should examine the check-out work that can be performed seated | Rite Aid: job as a whole governs whether seating is permitted; varies by store | Remanded for proper proceedings; court to assess amenability to class treatment without merits ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. 2012) (class certification should focus on recoverable theory, not merits when possible)
- Bradley v. Networkers Internat., LLC, 211 Cal.App.4th 1129 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (theory amenable to class treatment; merits deferred)
- Benton v. Telecom Network Specialists, Inc., 220 Cal.App.4th 701 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (proper inquiry is whether theory is likely class-amenable)
- Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Associates, Inc., 216 Cal.App.4th 220 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (focus on policy legality and common proof for class treatment)
- Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court, 34 Cal.4th 319 (Cal. 2004) (guidance on class certification standards)
- Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co., 23 Cal.4th 429 (Cal. 2000) (threshold issues in certification; merits not decided at this stage)
- Richmond v. Dart Industries, Inc., 29 Cal.3d 462 (Cal. 1981) (community of interest and classification standards)
- Fireside Bank v. Superior Court, 40 Cal.4th 1069 (Cal. 2007) (criteria for appellate deference in class certification)
- Vasquez v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.3d 800 (Cal. 1971) (procedural framework for class actions)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.2d 450 (Cal. 1962) (standard of review for certification decisions)