Synthia Ross v. Citizens Financial
667 F.3d 900
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Plaintiffs Synthia Ross, James Kapsa, and Sharon Wells led a class action against RBS Citizens, N.A. d/b/a Charter One and Citizens Financial Group, Inc. alleging FLSA §216(b) and IMWL violations related to unpaid overtime in Illinois branches.
- District court certified two IMWL classes: an Hourly class (non-exempt employees denied overtime) and an ABM class (Assistant Branch Managers denied overtime).
- Plaintiffs alleged an unofficial Charter One policy denying overtime by instructing not to record hours, erasing/modifying overtime, paying comp time, and requiring work during unpaid breaks; ABMs allegedly were misclassified as exempt despite non-exempt duties.
- Charter One challenged the certification on Rule 23(c)(1)(B) grounds, arguing the class definition and claims were not clearly defined.
- Following Dukes, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the certification order, concluding the class and its claims were properly defined and common questions existed for class-wide adjudication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the class and its claims were properly defined under Rule 23(c)(1)(B). | Ross contends the order clearly defines the class and the class claims. | Charter One argues the definition is conditional and impermissibly hinges on unlawful policy. | Yes; the district court definition was readily discernible and complete. |
| Whether the district court identified a comprehensive list of class claims/issues. | Ross asserts sufficient identification of class claims to adjudicate at trial. | Charter One argues a fuller list of issues was required. | Yes; two core claims were identified and adequate for class treatment. |
| Whether post-Dukes the classes satisfy commonality. | Ross relies on a common unlawful-overtime policy affecting many members. | Charter One claims individualized inquiries would predominate. | Dukes does not defeat commonality; common policy exists across class. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wachtel ex rel. Jesse v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 453 F.3d 179 (3d Cir. 2006) (defines Rule 23(c)(1)(B) definition requirements and needs for precise class delineation)
- Spano v. Boeing Co., 633 F.3d 574 (7th Cir. 2011) (emphasizes importance of defining class, claims, issues, defenses in certification order)
- Simer v. Rios, 661 F.2d 655 (7th Cir. 1981) (reinforces need for clear class identification and notice suitability)
- Gen. Tel. Co. of S.W. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982) (commonality concept in class actions (injury and common questions))
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (post-Dukes commonality standard; requires common answers driving resolution)
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (1990) (abuse-of-discretion review in class certification)