On July 24, 2015, United States District Judge Lawrence O’Neil issued an order granting certification to a class of FedEx line-haul drivers alleging rest break and wage violations under California law. See Taylor v. FedEx Freight, Inc., No. 13-01137 (E.D. Cal. July 24, 2015) (slip opinion available here). In doing so, Judge O’Neil adopted in full Magistrate Judge Barbara McAuliffe’s 27-page Findings and Recommendations (available here), rejecting each of FedEx’s arguments to the contrary.
Plaintiff Roy Taylor, a former line-haul driver for FedEx, brought suit in 2013 alleging that FedEx underpaid him and fellow drivers by utilizing a policy that failed to separately compensate them for non-driving activities, such as vehicle inspections, rest breaks, trip-related paperwork, and wait time. FedEx countered that non-driving work was already built into its mileage pay program. The plaintiff then moved for class certification under Rule 23.
Conceding numerosity and typicality, FedEx’s main arguments against class certification related to the U.S. Supreme Court’s heightened standards for commonality in Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), and the requirements for a manageable trial plan in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013). Ultimately, the District Court held that the question of whether FedEx’s compensation policy was lawful was well-suited for classwide determination.
With respect to commonality and predominance, FedEx argued that Dukes precludes certification because the dissimilarities among the class members prevent a common answer to the liability question of whether FedEx’s compensation policy failed to account for all non-driving work. Distinguishing Dukes, the court held that FedEx’s mileage policy was uniformly applied without discretion, and thus resolution of the liability question did not hinge on differences among the drivers.
With respect to manageability, FedEx contended that damages for the rest break claims could not be determined by reviewing employee time cards, because, although breaks were recorded, (1) the records did not distinguish between meal periods and rest breaks, and (2) the time cards were rounded in fifteen-minute increments. The court rejected this argument, however, finding that because the plaintiff’s theory of liability centers on FedEx’s non-payment for recorded rest breaks, liability would attach whenever the records demonstrated that a rest break was taken, regardless of the length. With respect to the wage claims, the plaintiff persuasively argued that statistical sampling and surveys, along with FedEx’s admissions and employee testimony, would effectively manage any differences in damages.
It is also noteworthy that the plaintiff successfully moved to certify a class period which continues “through the date of trial.” While FedEx argued that this definition subjects the company to one-way intervention and raises due process issues (because individuals hired after the mailing of the class notice would fall into the class definition, but would not have an opportunity to opt in or out), the court adopted the plaintiff’s proposed solution of providing a second class notice to such individuals just prior to trial.
Matthew Theriault, Partner
CAPSTONE LAW APC