Myers v. Marietta Memorial Hospital, 2:15-cv-02956

Plaintiffs (three named nurses + several opt-ins) are hourly nurses and patient care technicians who allege Memorial Health System and affiliated hospitals used a uniform automatic 30-minute meal-deduction policy that deducted unpaid time regardless of whether employees received an uninterrupted meal break.
Plaintiffs submitted affidavits and deposition testimony saying managers discouraged or reprimanded employees who tried to cancel the deduction ("clock out no lunch"), altered payroll, and failed to ensure employees were relieved of duties during meal periods.
Plaintiffs previously won conditional certification of an FLSA collective and obtained a preliminary injunction finding likely coercive conduct by defendants; the Court re-opened the opt-in period and barred defendant communications with putative class members pending resolution of this motion.
Plaintiffs moved to certify under Rule 23(b)(3) a subclass limited to hourly nurses and patient care technicians subject to the auto-deduct policy; defendants opposed on commonality, typicality, and evidence that many deductions were properly canceled and paid.
The Court applied the Rule 23 rigorous analysis, found numerosity (class list shows at least 1,168 members), commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority satisfied, and granted class certification; the Court ordered the parties to submit a joint opt-out notice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Numerosity	Class is large (≈1,168+), joinder impracticable; fear of retaliation increases impracticability	No real dispute on size; argues lack of admissible evidence of fear	Numerosity satisfied (class list >1,000; prior injunction and witness testimony support fear)
Commonality	Common policy/practice (auto-deduct + managerial discouragement/alterations) raises common legal questions about recordkeeping and unpaid work	Plaintiffs' experiences vary; many cancellations/payments occurred, and employees knew how to cancel deductions	Commonality satisfied—common policies and practices create common legal questions despite some individual differences
Typicality	Named plaintiffs suffered same injury from same policies and practices as class members	Named plaintiffs’ experiences reflect isolated supervisors or different practices, so not typical	Typicality satisfied—claims arise from same course of conduct and legal theory as class members
Predominance & Superiority	Common liability issues predominate; individual damages manageable via representative evidence; class is superior due to small individual claims and fear of reprisal	Largely rehashes commonality arguments about individualized issues and cancellations	Predominance and superiority satisfied; class action is appropriate and efficient

Gen. Tel. Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (rigorous Rule 23 analysis required)
Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 (court may consider evidence beyond pleadings on certification)
Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463 (permitting consideration of extra-pleading evidence at class stage)
Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036 (representative evidence may prove class claims)
White v. Baptist Mem. Health Care Corp., 699 F.3d 869 (employer policy will not shield employer if it prevents accurate reporting in practice)
Daffin v. Ford Motor Co., 458 F.3d 549 (numerosity guidance)
Bacon v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 370 F.3d 565 (large employee groups can satisfy numerosity)
Hamelin v. Faxton-St. Luke's Healthcare, 274 F.R.D. 385 (certifying class of healthcare workers subject to auto-deduct policy)