Migis v. Autozone, Inc.
387 P.3d 381
Or. Ct. App.2016Background
- Migis sued AutoZone as a class action (filed 2007) alleging unpaid "off-the-clock" work (opening/closing travel) and untimely final wages under ORS 652.140; court certified an off-the-clock class and a final-wages class.
- Jury found for the class on both off-the-clock and final-wages claims and awarded $110,030 in damages.
- Bench trial on statutory penalties produced $2,439,266 in penalties; prejudgment interest and later attorney fees were awarded (supplemental judgment: $4,249,665.49).
- AutoZone appealed multiple rulings including class certification and statutory penalties; Migis cross‑appealed several rulings (cross‑appeal affirmed).
- Key legal dispute on appeal: whether civil penalties under ORS 652.150 and ORS 653.055 require a jury finding of willfulness for off‑the‑clock wage violations; court also addressed preservation, tolling under ORCP 32 N, and attorney‑fee calculations/multiplier.
Issues
| Issue | Migis' Argument | AutoZone's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Class certification (commonality/predominance/superiority) | Classwide proof of employer practice and common issues predominate; class was superior | Trial evidence showed individualized experiences that defeat commonality and predominance | Certification affirmed: pretrial certification proper; end‑of‑trial decertification denied; final‑wages decertification arguments mostly unpreserved |
| Whether ORS 652.150 requires willfulness before imposing penalties for unpaid final wages (Type 3 penalties) | Willfulness not required for off‑the‑clock penalty once jury found wages unpaid; court could impose penalties | ORS 652.150 requires willful failure to pay for penalty to attach | Willfulness is required under ORS 652.150; trial court erred by imposing Type 3 penalties without a willfulness finding |
| Whether ORS 653.055(1) (penalties for unpaid overtime) incorporates willfulness from ORS 652.150 (Type 2 penalties) | Reference to ORS 652.150 is only for penalty calculation; no willfulness requirement for overtime penalties | ORS 653.055(1) makes employer liable for civil penalties "provided in ORS 652.150," thus importing willfulness | Held that ORS 653.055(1) incorporates the willfulness requirement of ORS 652.150; Type 2 penalties likewise required willfulness; court erred by not submitting willfulness to jury |
| Preservation / waiver of instructional and verdict‑form objections (ORCP 59 H, ORCP 61 B) | AutoZone failed to preserve by not taking specific exceptions / not demanding a willfulness question on special verdict | AutoZone adequately preserved willfulness issue by timely raising it in proposed instructions, objections, and colloquies | Preservation/waiver doctrines do not bar AutoZone’s appellate claim here; issue preserved and reviewable |
| Tolling of statute of limitations under ORCP 32 N (Joarnt action) and additional penalties | Tolling applicable; additional penalties properly imposed for class members whose limitations were tolled | Challenges to tolling/adjudication were not properly preserved in the excerpts; ORAP 5.45 deficiencies hinder review | Court declined to review many Tolling arguments because AutoZone’s preservation statement failed ORAP 5.45; some procedural denials of ORCP 64 motions were upheld |
| Attorney fees and multiplier enhancement | Fee award and multiplier justified by results and risks | Multiplier and statutory bases need closer scrutiny and apportionment; pre‑suit notice defective | Supplemental judgment awarding fees reversed and remanded (general judgment reversal also reverses fee award); trial court must reassess fee entitlement, apportionment, and provide adequate findings for any multiplier |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (class commonality requires a common answer to the critical question)
- Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc., 358 Or. 88 (ORCP 32 standards; commonality vs. predominance distinctions)
- Delgado v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc., 260 Or. App. 480 (class common proof; review standards)
- Wilson v. Smurfit Newsprint Corp., 197 Or. App. 648 (willfulness requirement under ORS 652.150 explained)
- State ex rel. Nilsen v. Cushing, 233 Or. 103 (historic treatment of ORS 652.150 as requiring willfulness)
- BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (due process limits on punitive damages; discussed re: proportionality argument)
- Strawn v. Farmers Ins. Co., 353 Or. 210 (lodestar and multiplier guidance for attorney fees)