322 F.R.D. 157
D. Conn.2017Background
- Plaintiffs are current/former CSC System Administrators (SAs) who claim CSC misclassified them as exempt from overtime under the FLSA and state laws (CA, CT, NC); court previously conditionally certified an FLSA collective action.
- CSC uses a global five-tier SA job-titling and description system (Associate Professional, Professional, Senior Professional SA are the three bottom tiers at issue) and company-wide "core processes" (Catalyst/ITIL) and client MSAs that constrain SA work.
- Discovery includes detailed job descriptions, Catalyst policies, MSAs, and depositions of named and many opt-in plaintiffs showing SAs perform tasks such as troubleshooting, server builds, patching, account administration, and some longer-term projects; degree of discretion varies by client/team.
- Plaintiffs moved to certify Rule 23(b)(3) state-law classes in California, Connecticut, and North Carolina; each state class proposed two subclasses (Associate+Professional; Senior Professional).
- Court rejected NC class as preempted by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-25.14, denied certification of Senior Professional subclasses (CA & CT) for lack of commonality, and certified CA and CT subclasses limited to Associate Professional + Professional SAs (with refinements: < $100k, worked >40 hours/week, exclude TTR segment).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether North Carolina state-law overtime/record claims can proceed alongside FLSA claims | Plaintiffs argued they pleaded non-preempted NC claims (e.g., payday statutes) | CSC argued NC statute preempts state minimum-wage/overtime claims where FLSA provides relief | Held: NC claims preempted by §95-25.14; NC classes not certified |
| Class ascertainability/standing (members who worked overtime) | Plaintiffs said damages differences don't defeat ascertainability; can include members who may not have OT | CSC argued class includes persons lacking Article III standing (never worked >40 hrs) | Held: Court required class definitions be limited to those who worked >40 hrs/week to ensure standing; redefinition permitted |
| Commonality/predominance for Associate Professional + Professional SAs (CA & CT) | Plaintiffs relied on global job descriptions, core processes, MSAs and representative testimony to show common duties susceptible to generalized proof | CSC argued actual duties vary materially across clients/teams and job descriptions are boilerplate; individualized inquiries would predominate | Held: Commonality and predominance satisfied for Associate+Professional subclass; class certified for CA & CT with limits |
| Commonality/predominance for Senior Professional SAs | Plaintiffs argued job descriptions and policies cover Senior duties as a class | CSC showed heterogeneous duties, promotions without duty change, and some SAs performing complex exempt-level projects | Held: Commonality lacking for Senior Professional subclass (CA & CT); certification denied for Senior subclass |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers v. Hertz Corp., 624 F.3d 537 (2d Cir. 2010) (generalized proof may answer exemption issues for class claims)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (commonality requires a common contention capable of classwide resolution)
- Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Ret. Plans & Trust Funds, 568 U.S. 455 (2013) (limits on merits inquiries at certification stage)
- Cuevas v. Citizens Fin. Grp., Inc., [citation="526 F. App'x 19"] (2d Cir. 2013) (district court must weigh probative strength of policy documents against individualized declarations when assessing classwide proof)
- In re Am. Int'l Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig., 689 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2012) (rigorous analysis requirement for Rule 23)
- In re Initial Public Offerings Sec. Litig., 471 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 2006) (ascertainability limits when membership requires individualized intent inquiries)
- Denney v. Deutsche Bank AG, 443 F.3d 253 (2d Cir. 2006) (class must be defined so that everyone in it has Article III standing)
- Robidoux v. Celani, 987 F.2d 931 (2d Cir. 1993) (court may refine class definition at certification)
- Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 314 F.R.D. 457 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (denial of certification where employee duties varied materially as to exemption analysis)