Rest breaks and bag checks: 9th Circuit clarifies class certification standards

Class action leprechauns will be disappointed to hear that a “company’s policy by itself—even if it remains constant during the class period—is not an elixir that turns canned allegations in a complaint into a pot of class action gold.” A recent case provides clarity from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (whose rulings apply to all California employers) on class certification. Mere allegations of a facially violative policy aren’t sufficient to support class certification without more. Courts will consider whether the employer uniformly applied and enforced the policy, or whether a detailed and individualized analysis of the claim is required. Like with so many facets of wage and hour law, class certification isn’t clear-cut, and this case provides two ends of the spectrum for when a claim challenging a company’s policy can—and cannot—be certified as a class action.

Background

Ariana Miles worked for Kirkland’s Stores, Inc.—a chain of home and décor stores—from February 2011 through July 2018. She filed a proposed class action complaint challenging two of Kirkland’s employee policies. The first policy required employees to take rest breaks on store premises. Kirkland’s 2016 policy stated:

Rest breaks are scheduled and must be noted and signed off on the Daily Game Plan. Employees are not to leave the store premises during scheduled working hours without permission of their supervisor, with the exception of meal periods.