Lubin v. Wackenhut Corp.
5 Cal. App. 5th 926
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Wackenhut (now G4S Secure Solutions) operated a California security-guard business with ~10,000–13,000 officers across many client sites; plaintiffs are former officers who sued on behalf of a class.
- Plaintiffs alleged: failure to provide lawful off-duty 30‑minute meal periods, failure to authorize/permit 10‑minute rest breaks, and deficient itemized wage statements in violation of California wage orders and Labor Code § 226.
- Trial court initially certified a statewide class (Jan 7, 2001–present). Parties agreed to use statistical sampling to determine how many meal agreements lacked required revocation language.
- After Wal‑Mart v. Dukes, Wackenhut moved to decertify; the trial court granted decertification, citing predominance and unmanageable individualized issues (meal, rest, and wage‑statement claims).
- The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, holding the trial court erred in its legal analysis (misapplying Wal‑Mart and requiring plaintiffs to prove absence of breaks on an individual basis), and found plaintiffs’ theories were amenable to classwide proof (including use of sampling or document production).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meal‑period liability / "nature of the work" exception | Wackenhut had a uniform practice requiring on‑duty meal agreements and letting client preference dictate meal type; that policy can be adjudicated classwide | Individualized site/post differences mean the "nature of the work" defense requires individualized proof and defeats predominance | Reversed decertification: plaintiffs’ theory (uniform policy) is amenable to classwide resolution; nature‑of‑work defense was misapplied as a bar to certification where employer did not make individualized determinations before imposing on‑duty breaks |
| Validity of on‑duty agreements (revocation clause) / use of statistical sampling | Sampling (or production) can establish how many agreements lacked required revocation language; sampling was an agreed manageability tool supplementing other evidence | Wal‑Mart prohibits representative sampling for classwide proof; sampling would deprive Wackenhut of individual defenses and produce imprecise recoveries | Rejected trial court’s blanket prohibition on agreed statistical sampling here; sampling was not the sole proof and was distinguishable from Wal‑Mart; agreements are ascertainable and sampling or document review is permissible |
| Rest‑break claim (authorization/permission) | Wackenhut had no written California rest‑break policy before 5/23/2008; its uniform practice of not authorizing off‑duty rest breaks supports class treatment | Evidence some officers actually received off‑duty rest breaks creates individualized issues precluding predominance | Reversed: plaintiffs’ showing of a uniform policy/practice supports class treatment; anecdotal evidence of some valid breaks goes to damages, not to predominance |
| Wage‑statement claim (Lab. Code §226) | Wage‑statement defects (missing dates/rates and missing premium pay for missed breaks) present common questions; statutory amendment clarified injury standard and supports class treatment | Injury under §226 requires individualized proof of actual harm, so predominance fails | Reversed: wage‑statement claims are suitable for class treatment under the clarified injury standard; derivative wage‑statement theory tied to meal/rest claims also amenable to classwide resolution |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (class certification requires a common contention capable of resolving central issues in one stroke)
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (California framework for predominance/community of interest in wage‑and‑hour class actions)
- Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036 (statistical/representative sampling admissible when reliable and probative of elements at issue)
- Abdullah v. U.S. Security Associates, Inc., 731 F.3d 952 (9th Cir.) ("nature of the work" defense and classwide adjudication in security‑guard context)
- Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Associates, Inc., 216 Cal.App.4th 220 (classwide challenge to blanket on‑duty meal agreements for security guards)
- Duran v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Assn., 59 Cal.4th 1 (limits of sampling where sample design/representativeness is defective)