Ci rc ui tJ udge Evans di ed o n Augus t10 , 20 11 , an d did n ot  par t i c ip ate in the dec i s i on ofthi s c as e, whi c h i s be i ng re so lv ed b y a q u o ru m o f th e p a n el u n d er 28 U .S.C . § 4 6 (d ). The H onorab le Charles N
. Clevert, J r. , U nit ed Stat es D is tr ic t  Co urt for the Easte rn D is tric t of W is consi n, s it ti ng b y d es ignat i on. 

## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 10

- 3848 S Y NT HI A G. R O SS, J AM ES K AP SA, a nd S HARON W ELL S, o n b e ha l fo fthe mse l v e s a nd a l lo the r s s i mi l a r l y s i t ua t e d, P la intif fs-A pp ellees, v. RB S C I T I Z EN S, N. A. d /b/a C HA RTER O NE an d C ITIZENS F INANCIAL G R OUP, I NC ., D efend a nts-A pp ella nts.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 09 CV 5695

—Jo an H umphreyL efk ow, Judge
. A RGUED A PRI L 12, 2011

— D ECI DE D J AN UA RY 27, 2012
Befo re K ANNE a nd E V ANS , C ircu it Judges an d  C LEV ERT, D i s t r i ctJudg e . 2 N o. 10

- 3848

P lain tiff W ells w or k e d for C ha rter O ne in O hio

. Sh e is not a 1 party to this app eal because she ha s n o cl aim agains t Charte r On e u n de r th e I l l i n o i s Mi n i mum W a g e L a w. K ANN E , Cir cu i tJudg e . S yn th i a Ro ss , J ames Kaps a, a nd Shar on W el l s fi l ed thi s cl ass act i on a gainst RBS Ci ti zens, 1 N
. A

. doi ng business a s Chart erOne ( a r el ate d enti ty, Cit i z e ns F i na nc i a l Gr o up , I nc . i s a l s o na med b utf or sim p licit y, it n ee d n otbe m en tio n e d ) for a lleg ed ly viol ating th e Fair L abor Stan d ard s A ct, 29 U
. S. C

. § 216(b), a nd th e I l l i no i s Mi ni mum W a g e La w ( “ I M W L” ) , 8 2 0 I LCS § 1 05/ 1 ets eq . Th e cen tral cl aim i s tha t the plaintiff s a n d o th e rs i m i l a r l y s i t u a t e d e m p l o y e e s a n d f o r m e re mpl o y e e s o f Ch a r t e r On e we r e de ni e d o v e r t i me pay to w hi ch the y w er e e nti tl ed

. F o rthe I M W L c l ai m , the d istrict cou rt grante d the p lai nt iffs’ m otion to certify tw o classes. Ch arter O n e ch all en ges th e d istri ct cou rt’s c las s c er tific at ion ord er so lely o n t h e g ro u n d th at it did notco m plywith Rul e 2 3( c) (1)( B ) ofthe Feder alRule s o fCi vi lPr o ce du re. F o l l o wi ngo r ala r g um en t, the S up r e me Co ur tc l a r i fi e d the R ul e 2 3 ( a ) c o mm o na l i ty elem en t i n Wa l-M a rt Sto res, Inc . v. D uk es , 1 3 1 S

. Ct. 25 41 ( 20 11 )

. Shor tly the r ea fte r, we r eque st ed th e par ti e s f i l e s t a t e me n t s o f p o s i t i o n a d d r es si ng whe the rthe c l a s s c e r t i fi c a t i o n o r de rs a t i s fi e d D uk es . W e n ow affirm

.N o. 10

- 3848 3 I. B ACK GR OUN D C h ar te r O n e o p er at es m or e t h an 10 0 b an k b ra n c h es in I l l i no is. M o sta r e tr adi ti o na ls ta nd- al o ne b r an ch es , a nd the r estar e s m al l“in-s tor e” bra nches usual l y l oca ted i nsi de pla ces l i ke superm ar ket s. The br anches ar e o rg ani zed i nto seve n re gi ons, ea ch w i th a re gi onalm anage r who r epo r ts t o the s ta te di r ec to r. E m pl o y ee s atthe I ll inois branc he s are organized , for overtim e pu rp os es , in to tw o c at eg or ies : “e x em p t” an d “n on -ex em p t.” The non- exem pt cat egory i s co m pri sed o fem plo yee s w ho do m or e r outi ne ta sks

— l i ke tel l er s a n d perso nal ban kers

— a l lo fw h o m a r e e l i g ib l e t o r e c e i v e o v e r t i me pay wh en the y workm or e tha n fo rty ho urs per w eek

. T he exem p t categ or y is com p rised of branc h m an agers a n d a s s i s t a n tb r a n c h ma n a g e r s ( “ AB Ms ” )

. T h e s e e mplo yee s a re i nel i gibl e t o re cei ve ove rt i m e pay. Sy nthi a R o s s b e g a n wo r k i nga s a t e l l e ra ta Ch i cago bra nch i n 200 0 an d w as l ate r prom ote d to tel l erm anage r bef or e h er em plo ym ent t er m i nated i n 200 7. J am es K apsa w as hi re d as a n A BM ata bra n c h in S t. Charl es, I l l i noi s, in 2 007 a nd b ec ame a ct i ngb r an chmana g erf o ra s ho rt pe ri od ofti m e be f or e s w i tchi ng r ol es to beco m e a perso nalbank er . K ap sa spent ti m e a t s eve ra lo ther Illino is b ra n c h es be for e h is e m p loy m en t t er m in at ed in 2009
. Ross al l ege s that Ch ar ter One has a n u noffi ci al p o l i c y o fd e n y i n go v e r t i me p a y t o i t s n o n - e x e mp te mp loyees by: (1) instru cting th em not to recor d hou rs wor k ed perwee ko ver f o r ty ; ( 2) e r as i ngo rmodi fy i ng re cor ded ove rt i m e hours; ( 3) gi vi ng them “co m p ti m e” i nstea d ofpayi ng o ver ti m e; and ( 4) r equi ring the m to4 N o. 10

- 3848 pe r f o r m wo r kdu r i ngu np a i d b r e a k s . Ka ps a a l l ege s that Ch ar terOne i l l ega l l y deni es A BM s o ver ti m e pay by m i scl ass i fyi ng the i r posi ti ons as exem pt eve n though AB M s spe nd the maj o r i tyo fthe i rt i m e p erfo r m i ngno nexem pt w ork. C hart erOne deni es that any s uch u n o ffi c i a l po l i c y e x i s t s , a n d fu r th e rc o n t e n d s th a tA B Ms ar e co rr ectly c l ass i fi ed as exem pt em plo yee s. P l a i n t i ff s s o u g h tt o c e r t i fy t wo c l a s s e s f o rth e I MWL c laim

— th e “Ho ur l y ” cl as s an d the “ AB M ” clas s. The propos ed H ourly c l ass defi ni ti on i s: A l lcurr ent a nd f or m ernon- ex em p t e m plo yee s o f [ Ch ar te r One] w ho have worke d at thei r Ch ar ter O n e r e t a i lb r a n c h l o c a t i o n s i n I l l i n o i s a ta n y t i me du ring the l astthr ee y ear s, wh o w er e s ubj ect to [ Ch ar terOne’s ] unl aw fu l co m pensati on pol i ci es of fa ilin g t o p ay ov er tim e c om p en sa tio n for a ll hours w or ked i n exces s o ff or ty per w or k week. The propos ed A BM cl ass defi ni ti on i s: A l lcurr ent and fo rm erA ssi sta nt Branch M anage r em plo yee s o f[ Ch arte r O ne] wh o have w or ked at th eir C h a rt er O n e re ta il bra n c h loc at ion s in I l l i noi s a t a ny ti m e during the l astthr ee yea rs , w ho wer e su bj ec t to [ Cha r te rOne ’ s] unl awful c o mp e n s a t i o n p o l i c i e s o ff a i l i n gt o p a y o v e r t i me com pensati on f oral lhour s work ed in excess of f or ty per w or k week. I n a c ar eful l y r ea so ne d s ev en te en- pag e o pi ni o n a nd or der, J ud ge Lefk ow fou nd thatthe pla i nti ff s s ati sfi ed the f o urc l a s s - a c t i o n pr e r e qu i s i t e s o fF e de r a lR ul e o fN o. 10

- 3848 5

In the guis e ofs ugg es ti ng that a rem and w ould b e futil e, 2 Char t erOne de vot es a f ai r por t i on ofits br i ef s ar gui ng thatboth c er t i fi ed c l as s es are fundam en t al l y uns ui t abl e f or c l as s t re atm en t. But, our Novem ber30 , 20 10 , or der gr ant i ng d efend an t’ s m otio n for lea v e to a p p e a l p u r su a nt to R ule 23( f ) l im ited our revie w to “the sol e i ss ue ofw hether the d ist r i ct cou rt com p lied w ith R u le 23 (c) (1)( B ). ” T hu s, (co n tin u ed ...) Civi lPro cedure 23( a) , nam el y: num er osi ty, co m m onal i ty, typi cal i ty, and a dequ acy of re prese ntati on. She also f ound that th e p lainti ff s s ati sfi ed Rule 23 ( b) ( 3) , wh i ch re quir es that “questi ons ofl aw o r f act com m on t o class m em bers p red om inate ove r any q ue stions affecting o nl y ind i vi du alm em ber s, and that a cl ass act i on i s s upe r i o rt o o th era va i l ab l e m etho ds f o rf ai r l y a nd effi ci entl y a dj ud i cating the co ntro ver sy. ” The di str i ct cour t then cer ti fi ed both cl ass es as opt-out cl ass es und er Rule 23(b) ( 3) bas ed on the pro posed cl ass defi ni ti ons. Ch ar terOne fi l ed th is ti m el y inter l ocuto ryappeal pur su an t to Rul e 23 ( f )

. On S ept embe r1 4, 2 01 1, f o l l o wi ng or al a rgum ent, we aske d the par ti es to fi l e s tat em ents ofposi ti on descr ibi ng wh etherthe cer ti fi ed cl ass es sat i sfy the D uk es co ncepti on o fco m m onal i ty.

II. A NA LYSIS Ch arte r One app eal ed the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s ce rt i fi cati on or der, and thi s inter l ocuto ryappeali s now befor e us on (1) th e very na rrow i ssu e of w he th er the d is t rict court j ud g e ’ s c e r t i fi c a t i o n o r de rco mpl i e d wi th Ru l e 2 3 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( B) 26 N o. 10

- 3848

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 2 we dec l i ne t o r evi ew C ha rt erOne’ s s ui t abi l i t y a rg um en t t o th e e x t e n t i t d o e s n o t d i r e c t l y r e s p o n d t o o u r S e p t e mb er 14 , 20 11 , or d er req u esting p osit ion statem en ts discuss ing w hether D u kes alters th e d istrict cou rt’ s com m on ality an aly sis. I n Spa no , r e fe r r i n g t o c l a s s e s c e r t i fi e d u n de r Ru l e 2 3 ( b ) ( 1 ) , we 3 w rote , “[ T]he m osti m p o rt a n t p artofthatorder i s the place whe r e i tde fi ne s the c l a s s . Th i s i s a vital st e p. Bo th the s c op e ofthe l i t i ga t i ona nd the ul t i m ate r e s jud icata e ffec tofthe (co n tin u ed ...) a n d ( 2 ) w h e th e r th e t w o c e r t i fi e d c l a s s e s s a t i s fy th e c o mm onal i ty prer equi si te post- D uk es . W e review clas s c e rtific at ion d ec isio n s f o r a n ab u se of d isc re tio n . Ervi n v . O S Rest
. Se rvs . , Inc. , 632 F.3d 971 , 9 76 (7th C ir. 2011). But, “ [ i ] fa d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s fi n d i n g s r e s to n a n e r r o n eo us vie w of th e la w , th ey m ay be s etas id e o n th at ba sis .” Coote r& Ge l l v. Har t m arx C orp. , 49 6 U.S

. 38 4, 40 2 ( 1990 ) (q u ot at ion m ar ks om itt ed ); E rvin , 63 2 F
. 3d at 976.

A
. D efinin g th e C la ss an d th e C la ss C la im s, Issues, or D efenses Rule 23( c) ( 1) ( B) w as add ed to the Feder alRule s in 200 3. The Rule p ro vid es, “An o rderthatcer ti fi es a cl ass act i on m ust defi ne the cl ass and the cl ass cl ai m s, i ssues , o r d efe n se s, an d m u st ap p oin t c las s c ou n se l un d er R u le 23( g)

. ” F ed. R. Ci v. P. 23 ( c) ( 1) ( B). A l thoug h w e t ouched bri efl y o n the i m port ance ofpro p er l y defi ni ng the cl ass , cl ai m s, i ss ue s, a nd de fen se s i n Span o v. Boe i ng Co. , 633 F. 3d 574 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11) , the exact conto urs of 3N o. 10

- 3848 7

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 final j ud gm ent dep end on the cl ass defi nit ion. ” 633 F. 3d at583- 84 ( ci tat ions om it ted)

. W e u ltim atel y revers ed the dis tr ic t cou rt’ s certifi catio n o rd er , an d thu s, ha d no nee d to fully in te rp re t R u le 23 (c)(1 )(B ). T he First C ircu it, in d ictu m , ad op ted the re aso nin g in 4 Wach te l

. In rePharm. Indus . A v erageWhol es al e Pri ceLi t ig. , 588 F .3d 24 , 38 -4 1 (1s t C ir . 20 0 9 ). Rule 23( c) ( 1) ( B) i s a n i ssue offi rs t im press i on f orus. Se eal s o S i m e rv. Ri os , 66 1 F
. 2d 655, 67 0 ( 7th Ci r. 19 81) ( presu bs ec ti o n ( c) ( 1) (B) cas e fi ndi ngtha t pr o perc l as s i den

ti fi ca ti o n “ al er ts the c o ur t an d par ti es t o the b ur den s that such a proce ss m i ght e ntai l ” an d “insures that th o se a ctua l l y ha r m ed bydefen dan ts ’ wro ng fulc o ndu ct wil lbe the r eci pie nts o fthe re l i efev entual l y pr ovide d ”). Onl y the Thi r d Ci r cui t ha s ful l y addr es se d the mean i ng of R u le 2 3(c )(1) (B ). Wachtel ex re l. Jes se v. G uardian Lif e In s . C o. o

f A m. , 45 3 F
. 3d 179 ( 3d Cir

. 20 06)

. The Wa ch tel 4 cour t s tar ted i ts anal ysi s, as i t m ust, with t h e ru l e’ s t ext. Se eBar nhar tv. Sigm on Coal Co. , 53 4 U .S . 438, 450 ( 2002 ). Th e T hi r d C i r c ui tr e a s o ne d: T o “ d efin e” a th in g or c on c ep t is “t o s ta te p re c ise ly ordeter m i natel y [ i ts boundari es] ; to spec ify” or “[ t] o fr am e or gi ve a p re ci se descri pti on” ofa thi ng. O xfo rd E ng lish D ictio na ry( 2d ed. 1 98 9)

. Acco r di ng to the Rul e, tho se thi ngs t o be d efi ned i n a c er ti fi cation o rd eri ncl ud e the “c l ass andthe cl ass cl ai m s, i s s ue s , o rde fe ns e s . . . . ” Fe d. R
. Ci v . P
. 2 3 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( B)8 N o. 10

- 3848 (em p h as is a d d ed ). Th e ab ov e e lem en ts oc c u r in a conj unc ti ve , undi ffer en ti at ed l i st, i ndi ca ting that the r equi re m ent t o “defi ne” the “cl ass cl ai m s, i ss ue s o rde fen se s” i s i den ti ca lt o the r equi r ement to defi ne the “cla ss” its el fw i thi n a g i ven ce rt i fi catio n ord er . Id. Further m or e, the use ofthe defini te ar ti cl e “ the” bef or e “ c las s cl ai m s, i ssues , o r defenses ” co nnotes co m prehensi venes s and speci fi ci ty, r atherthan i l l ustr ati ve orpart i altr eat m ent, i n d efining those as pects ofcl ass act i on ce rt i fi cati o n. Wa ch tel , 45 3 F
. 3d at 185. W e fi nd thi s inter preta ti on persu asiv e, es peci al l y when r ea d i n c o nj unc ti o n wi ththe hi st o r y a nd pur po se o fthe 2003 am en d m en ts to Ru le 23. A lthou gh the A d visory Com m i tte e Notes acco m panyi ng the se am endm ents do not speci fi cally ad dress subse cti on ( c) ( 1) ( B), the pu bl i shed re porto fthe St anding Com m i tt ee on Rul es ofPra cti ce an d Proce du re i ntro du ced the propos ed Ru l e 2 3 a men dme nt s b y no t i ng tha t the Ru l e 2 3( c ) ( 1 ) ( B) re quir em ent “f aci l i tat es appli cati on o fthe i nter l ocuto ry ap p ea l p ro vis ion of R u le 2 3(f) by req u irin g t h at a c ou rt
. . . define the cl ass i t i s ce rt i fyi ng and i denti fy the cl ass cl ai m s, i ssues , and defenses . ” Com m . o n Ru les of P ra c tic e an d P ro c ed u re , Jud icia l C on fer en c e, Rep or tof the Judici al Co nfe re nce, 8, 11 ( Se pt. 20 02)

. W i thout a pre ci se d efin itio n of th e c las s, cla i m s , iss u es , an d d efe n se s, it w oul d be e xceedi ngl y di ffi cul t forthi s co urt to re vi ew th e prop riety ofa class certification ord er.N o. 10

- 3848 9 The Thir d C i rcui t’ s pl ain r eadi ng o fthe Rule i s a l so supp or ted bythe Feder alRule ’ s a pp ar ent m ove towards the cr eat ion o fvo l untarytr i alpl ans. In obser vi ng co urts ’ i ncre ase d use o fcla ss- acti on t ri alpl ans, th e A d vis or y C om m itt ee n ot ed th at th e “ c rit ica l ne e d is to deter m i ne how the ca se w i l lbe tr i ed. ” F ed. R. Ci v. P. Rule 23 advi sory c om m i tte e’ s no te . The j usti fi cati on f ora cl eartr i alpl an appli es w i th equalf or ce t o subsecti on ( c) ( 1) ( B). In other w or ds, ther e i s a cr i ti calneed to de fi ne the c l as s, c l ai m s, i ss ue s, a nd de fen se s so the p ar tie s c an ad eq u at ely p r e p ar e fo r tr ial. See a lso Sim er, 661 F. 2d at 670. Gi ve n the t ex t, hi st o r y, a nd pur po se o fRul e 2 3 a nd th e i mpo r t a n c e we a s c r ib e d t o p r e c i s e c l a s s d e fi n i t i o ns i n Span o a nd Sim er, w e agree w it h t he Th ird C ircuit’s i nter preta ti on o fsubse cti on ( c) ( 1) ( B). Wa ch tel , 45 3 F
. 3d at 18 7-8 8. There f or e, we hol d that the appropr i ate subst an ti ve i nqui r y f o rRul e 23 ( c) ( 1) ( B) i s “whe th er the preci se param ete rs defi ni ng t h e cl ass and a c om ple te l i st ofthe cl ai m s, i ssues , o r defe nses to be tr eat ed on acl ass bas is a r e r ea di l y di sc ernibl e fr o m the t ex t ei th ero fthe ce r ti fi ca ti o n order i ts el fo ro fa n inc o r po r at ed m emor an du m o pini on. ” Id. at18 5. T hi s m eans that an o rder ( ori ncor pora ted o pini on) m ust include tw o el em ents: “( 1) a re adily di scernibl e, cl ear, an d p re ci se sta tem ent o f the par am eters defi ni ng the cl ass o r cl ass es to be c e r t i fi e d , a n d ( 2 ) a r e a d i l y d i s c e r nib l e , c l e a r, a n d c o mple te l i st ofthe cl ai m s, i ssues o r d efense s t o be t re ate d on a cl ass bas i s. ” Id. a t 18 7- 88
. The que st i o n c o nfr o nt i ng us now i s whether the di str ict j ud ge’ s ce rt i fi cati on or der m eet s thi s s tandard. A l though there m i ght b e10 N o. 10

- 3848

s o me r o o m f o rthe di s t r i c tc ourtto h a v e dr a ft e d a clearer certification ord er, w e find the trial c o urt di d no t ab us e its di sc r et i o n in de fi ni ngthe c l as s an d th e c las s c laim s, iss u es , or d e f e n s e s for b ot h th e H ou rly and A BM cl ass es.

1. D efinin g th e C la ss Ch ar terOne fi rs t chal l enges wh etherthe cl ass was proper l y defi ned. T h e d i str i ct c ourt ’ s ce rt i fi cati on o rder cre ate d an H ou rl y c l ass and an AB M cl ass bo th o f whi chi nc l ude d e m pl o yees a nd f o r m ere m pl o y ee s “who w ere su b jec t to de fend an ts’ unl awfu l co m p en sa tio n p olici es ” ( emphas i s adde d)

. Cha r ter O ne c o nt en ds th atthe cl ass cer ti fi cati on o rdercrea tes a condi ti onalcl ass that hi ng es o n whe th eri ts o ve r ti m e po l i cywas unl awful

. To th e defen dan t, the t er m “ unl awful” su g g es ts tha t th e cou rt m us t fi rst d eterm ine li abili ty b e fo re class m em bersh ip ca n be d e t er m in ed . W ith ou t a p re c ise cla ss d efin iti o n, Char te rOne war ns tha t i t i s i m po ss ibl e to s en d not ice to cl ass m em bers as req uired by Ru le 23(c) (2)( B ). A lth ou gh th er e is p er h ap s so m e m in or am b igu ity in th e ce r ti fi ca ti o n o r der, the di st r i ct c o ur t’ s m emor an dum o pi ni o n a cc o m panying th e o rd er eli m i na te s an y potenti alf orc on fusi on. In f act, J ud ge Lefk ow concl ud ed i n h e rR u l e 2 3 ( b ) ( 3 ) p r e d o mi n a n c e a n a l y s i s t h a ta n u n l a wful pol i cy coul d be infer re d based o n “the num bero f peopl e m aking t h e s am e a l l ega ti ons acr oss br anches, m anage rs , posi ti ons , and ti m e fra m es. ” Ro s s v . R BS C i t iz e n s , N. A. , N o. 09 C V 56 95 , 201 0 W L 39 80 11 3, at *6 ( N
. D. I l l

. Oc t. 8 , 2 01 0)

. F o rpurpo se s o fc l as s ce r ti fi ca ti o n,N o. 10

- 3848 11

The pl ai nt i ff s ’ M ot i on f or A ppro val ofCl as s Noti c es an d the 5 atta ch ed p ro p osed no tice fo r the H ou rly class is d irected to “cu rr en t and f orm er Charte r On e I ll inoi s bank ers , pers onal bank ers , te ll ers , te ll er m anagers, h ead tel le rs and seni or t el le rs worki ng at Char t erOne’ s I l l i noi s r et ai l br anc h l oc at i ons (co n tin u ed ...) J ud ge Lefk ow fo und that all c u r r e n ta n d f o r me re mpl o y ee s wh o h ave wo r k ed ata n I l l i no i s Cha r te rOne l oca ti on within t h e la st thre e y ear s were subj ect to an unlawfulo ver ti m e pol i cy, and as such, qual i fy a s cl ass m em b er s. T h u s, th e c er tific at ion ord er , w h en rea d in co nj unc ti o n wi ththe mem o ran d um o pi ni o n, l ea ve s no doubt abo ut wh i ch em plo yee s a nd f or m erem plo yee s const i tute the c l ass . Furtherm or e, the potent i alhar m s o fa poor l y- defined cl ass ar e no t i m p licat ed by the di str i ct c ourt ’ s a l l ege d l ack of preci si on. For exam ple , our re vi ew ofthe cer ti fi cati on o rderand m em orandum o pini on was i n no way dil uted by an im p re ci se cl ass defi ni ti on. A s we have al re ady m ade cl ear, we re ad J ud ge Lefk ow’s w ellr e a s o n e d s e v e n t e e n - p a g e o p i n i o n a n d o r d e rt o d efi ne b o th c l a s s e s a s c o n s i s t i n go fa l lH o u r l y a n d A B M e mplo yee s an d fo rm erem plo yee s who have w or ked at Ch ar terOne duri ng the pre vi ous three ye ar s. S i m i l ar l y, the Sim er j us t i fi c a t i o ns f o ra c l e a rc l a s s de fi ni t i o n do not com e i nto pla y. H er e, em plo yee s and for m er em plo yee s withi n the past three ye ar s a re o n noti ce o f h ow th eir righ ts m igh t b e a ffe c t ed by litiga tin g t h is dispute as a c l ass bec ause the pl ai nti ff s’ pro posed not ice m irr ors the d istri ct cou rt’s certific ation ord er. 512 N o. 10

- 3848

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 5 w ho w ere em p l o y e d i n th is po sition from O ctob er 23 , 20 06 to the p resen t.” Fu rth er, the d escrip tion of the H ou r l y claim sp ecifically m e ntio ns fou r m ech an ism s Ch arte r O ne alleg ed ly em ployed i n faili ng to pay ov ert im e. Likew is e, the prop osed noti ce f or the AB M cl ass i s direct ed to “al l currentand form er Ch art er One Il li nois as si st ant branch m anagers w ho w ere em p loy ed in this p osition f r om O ctob er 23 , 20 06 to the p resen t.” Th e d e sc r ip tion of the A B M law suit exp lain s the claim as on e ofi nc or re c tclas s i fi c at i on ofABM s as e xe m ptpe rs onne l

. Both class- not i c e doc um en t s l ea ve l i t t l e ro om f or c onfusion am on g p ote ntia l class m em b ers. Ult i m at ely, we fi nd tha t th e d istri ctc o ur t defi ne d the cl as s i n a manne rtha t i s “r ea di l y di sc ernibl e fr o m the text ei therof the cer ti fi cati on orderits el fo r ofan incor pora ted m em or andu m o pini on. ” Wa ch tel , 45 3 F
. 3d at 185.

2. D efinin g th e C la ss C la im s, Issues, or D efenses Ch ar terOne al so ass erts thatthe dist ri ct c ourtabuse d i ts disc re ti on byi denti fyi ng o nl y tw o claim s fortr i al i nstea d ofi denti fyi ng a c om prehensi ve l i st ofcl ai m s, i ssues , o r defe n se s. S e e Wa ch tel , 4 53 F
. 3d at1 88 ( affi r m i ng th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s defi ni ti o n o fthe class , b utr emanding be cause the di st r i ctc o ur t f ai l ed to i den ti fy a c o m pr eh en s i v e l i s to fc l a i ms , i s s u e s , o rd e fe n s e s )

. C h a r t e rO n e c o nce des t h a tth e d i s t r i c tc o u r tp r o p e r l y i d e n t i fi e d t wo cl ai m s, bu t it i denti fi es seve n additi onalquesti ons that the di str i ct c ourtpurport edl y shoul d have di scusse d asN o. 10

- 3848 13

For exam ple, Ch art er O ne contends that it is unclear w hether 6 i t s ac t u a l o r c o n s t r u c t i v e k n o w l e d g e o fe a c h a l l e g e d I MWL v i o l a t i o n w i l l b e t r i e d o n a c o mmo n b a s i s o r th r o u g h s o me t ype ofi ndi vi dual pr oc ee di ng. cl ai m s o r i ssues . W i thout a co m prehensi ve l i st of 6 i ssues , Charte r One w ar ns thatthe parti es can n ot adequ ately prep are for trialand pot en tial class m em bers c a nno t m a k e i nfo r med de c i s i o ns ab o utwh e the rt o o pt out ofthe cl ass . Li k e th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s defi ni ti o n o fthe c l as s, w e fi nd no abus e o fdi sc r et i o n in h o w J udg e Lefk o w defi ne d the class issues , clai m s , o r d efense s. T o begin, Ch arter O ne ’s he avy r el i an ce o n Wa ch tel i s m i spl ac ed. The r e, the Thi rd C irc u it c h id ed th e d ist ric t c ou rtfor u sin g t h e L at in phrase inte r alia (“ a m o n g othe r things ”) becau se th e very use o fthatphrase s u ggests thatthe l i st ofco m m on i ss ue s i s i ntent i o na l l y i nc o m pl et e. 4 53 F
. 3d at1 89
. The dist ri ct c ourti n thi s ca se did notm ake the sam e m i stak e. The Wa ch tel cou rt also foun d the d istri ct cou rt’s tr eat m ent o fthe cl ai m s, i ss u es, and defenses to be “u n c lea r, int er m itt en t, an d in c om p let e,” w ith n ot h in g in the c er ti fi cati on o rderthat“e vi dences a n i nten t to expl i ci tl y defi ne wh i ch cl ai m s, i ssues , o r defe n se s ar e to be tr eat ed on a cl ass bas i s. ” Id. H er e, the dist ri ct c ou rt ’ s o pini on does notsufferfro m th e s am e d efic ien c ies as th e T h ird C irc u it fou n d in Wa ch tel

. Rather, the pla i nti ff s’ cl ai m s tha t w i l lbe tr i ed as a cl ass ar e “ re adily d iscernibl e” fro m the dist ri ct cour t’ s o rderand acco m panyi ng o pini on. Fo r exam ple ,14 N o. 10

- 3848 Jud ge L efkow clearl y i d en tifie d th e H ou rly class’s c l a i m tha t the y we r e s ubj e c t t o a c o mpa ny po l i cy that i ntenti onal l y f ailed to payl aw fully e ar ned ove rt i m e. R o ss , 2 0 1 0 W L 3 9 8 0 1 1 3 , a t * 6 ( “ [ T] he c o mm o n i s s ue o f whethe ra c om pan y - wi de po l i cye xi st ed to de ny ov er tim e w ill pr ed om in at e o ve r th e v ar iat ion s in m ethods us ed to a cc o m pl i shthe a l l eg ed po l i cy . ”)

. The d ist ric t co urt w ent s o f aras to i denti fy four possible w ays i n w hi ch the pla i nti ff s cl ai m ed theyhad bee n f or ced to work off-the- cl ock, al though J ud ge Lefk ow appropri ate l y l eft r oo m f orthe i ntro du cti on of othe r types ofev i dence i l l ustr ating the nature of Ch ar ter O n e’s u n law fu l p olic y. Id. E x p licitid en tific at ion of th is c laim an d fou r p os sib le t yp es of ev id en c e i s ex ac tly the type o fcl ar i ty and com pletenes s r equi re d by R u le 2 3(c )(1) (B ). L ike w ise , th e d ist ric t c ou rtc lea rly id en tifi ed the A BM cl ass ’ s cl ai m thatthei r prim ar y du ty w as to pe r f o r m no n- ex empt wo r kunde ra n un l awful c om p an y p olic y. Id. at* 7 ( “[ T]he re l evanti nquir y i s what an A BM ’ s pri m ar y duty i s. ”)

. The di st ric t courtal so st at ed th atthe appl i ca ti o n o fa ny I M W L e xe m pti o ns (e.g
. , ex ec u tiv e o r ad m in ist ra tiv e e x e m p tio n s) s h ou ld be t ri ed as a cl ass r atherthan thro ugh i nd i vi du al i zed in q u iries
. Id. U l ti m at ely, th e cl ai m s i den ti fi ed by th e di st r i ctcou rt ar e the only cl ai m s th atr equi r e r es o l ut i o n a t tr i ala nd th e d i s t r i c tc o u r ta p p r o p r i a t e l y f o un d th a tth e s e c l a i ms w i l lbe l i ti gat ed as a cl ass . The se ven quest i ons raised by Ch ar terOne ar e m er el y i ssues o ftr i al s tr ate gy or pr o o f, r athe rtha n o ve r al lc lai m s o ri ss ue s ne ce ss i ta ting re so lu tion. I fwe re ad Rule 23( c) ( 1) ( B) t o re quir e aN o. 10

- 3848 15 dist ri ct c ourtto l i st any pos sibl e m etho d ofpro of, as Ch ar terOne appears to sugg est, the l ength ofs uch an or der would bo rdero n the absur d. H er e, the dist ri ct co ur t r i g ht ful l y i den ti fi ed th e t w o c r i ti ca lc l ai m s an d th e p ot enti alf oran e xem pti on defense, and f ound that i t i s a l lbes t l i ti gat ed as a cl ass .
B
. Com m ona li ty F o l l o win go r a la r g u me n ti n th i s c a s e , th e S u p r e me Court cl ar i fi ed the Rule 23( a) ( 2) com m onal i ty prer equi si te i n Wa l-M a rt S to res, Inc . v. D uk es , 13 1 S

. Ct. at25 41. Shor tl y there after, w e i ssued an o rderas ki ng the part i es to fi l e br i efst ate m ents of pos i ti on descr ibi ng wh ether the c er ti fi ed cl ass es sat i sfy D uk es . W e fi nd that D uk es does not change the di str i ct c ourt ’ s co m m onal i ty re sul t, and as s uch fi nd thatthe dist rict co urt proper l y c er ti fi ed both cl ass es. T he com m ona li ty p rerequ isi te requ ires the p lai nt iff to show that “ ther e a re que st ion s o fl aw o r f act com m on t o th e c l a s s . ” F e d

. R
. C i v . P
. 2 3 ( a ) ( 2 )

. T h e S u p r e me Cou r t ha s i nt er pr et ed co m m o na l i tya s r equi r i ngthe pl aint i fft o s ho w tha t cl as s m em ber s “h av e su ffer ed th e sam e inj ury, ” Gen
. Te l

. Co. of Sw. v. Fa l co n , 45 7 U.S

. 14 7, 15 7 (1 98 2); D uk es , 131 S. C t. at25 51 , b u t n ot ab ly “ [t]h is does not m ean m er el y that they have all suffer ed a vi ol ati on o ft h e sam e pr ovi si on o fl aw , ” D uk es , 13 1 S

. C t
. a t 2 55 1. “W h at m at te rs to cla ss ce rt ifica tio n . . . is not the rai si ng o fco m m on ‘ questi ons’

— eve n i n drov es

— but, r atherthe capaci ty ofa c las sw i de proce edi ng to g en erat e co m m o n a nsw ers apt t o dri ve the r eso l uti on16 N o. 10

- 3848 of li ti gat i on. ” Id. ( e mph a s i s i n o r i g i n a l )

. T o s a t i s fy t he com m on ali ty el em ent, i t i s e nough f orpl ai nti ff s t o p re se n t jus t o n e c om m on cla im
. Id. at25 56. I n D uk es , a na ti o nwi de cl as s o f1
. 5 m i l l i o n c ur r en t an d fo rm er fe m ale e m p loy ee s fro m 3 ,40 0 st or es su ed W alM art, all eging th at th e com p an y enga ged i n a p at t e rn or p ra c tic e o f g en d er d isc rim in at ion in v iola tio n o f T itle V II of th e C ivil R igh ts A c t o f 19 64
. Id. a t 2 5 4 7 . A T itle V II dispar ate
- tr eat m ent s uit o f cour se re quir es that pla i nti ffs show proofo fdi scr i m i natory m oti ve ori ntent. Int’l B hd . of Team sters v. U nited Sta tes , 431 U
. S. 32 4, 335- 3 6 (1 9 7 7 ) ; D uk es , 1 31 S

. Ct

. a t 25 52 ( “[ I ] n r es o l vinga n ind ivid u al’s T itl e V II c laim , th e c ru x of th e in q u iry is th e re as on for a p ar tic u lar em p loy m e n t d e c isio n .”). In D uk es , the Court re ver sed the dis tr i ct c ourt ’ s ce rt i fi cati on o rdero n the gr ounds th at the pl ai nti ffco uld not offer“s i gni fi cant pr oo fthatW al

- M ar t o perat ed und er a g ener alpol i cy ofdisc ri m i nati on. ” D uk es , 13 1 S

. Ct. at 2 5 5 3 , 2 5 5 6 ( a p o l i c y a l l o wi ngdi s c r e ti on “ i s j us tthe o pp os ite of a u n iform em p loy m en t p ra c tic e t h at w ou ld provi de the com m onal i ty needed f ora cl ass act i on”) ( quo ta ti o n mar k s o m i tt ed)

. In r ev er sing cl as s ce r ti fi ca ti o n, the C o ur tf o un d tha tthe r e wa s n o u ni fy i ngmo t i ve theo ryhol ding tog ether“l i ter al l y m ill i ons ofem plo ym ent deci si ons. ” Id. at 2552
. I n the prese nt cas e, C hart erOne att em pts to fi nd si gni fi ca nts i m i l ar i ti es wi th D uk es . Charter One’s pri nci pal c o n t e n t i o n i s th a tb o th c l a s s e s ’ c l a i m s r e q u i r e th e s a me si gni fi cant a nd ti m e-co nsum i ng i nd i vi du al i zed l i abi l i ty in q u iries th atth e Su p re m e C ou rtfou n d p r o b lem at ic i n D uk es . Fo r the Hou rly c lass , Charte r One arguesN o. 10

- 3848 17

M i s re adi ng Du kes , C ha rter O ne also co nte nd s that it ha s a 7 st atutory righ t t o prese nt i ts affir m ati ve exem ption defense s on an in d i v id u alize d b asis, an d thu s, ther e is no co m m on ality. H ow ever, the D u kes pas s age the defen dant cites in sup p or t o f its arg u m en t d iscusses h ow the N inth C ircu it im p ro p erly certified a R u le 23 (b )(2 ) class tha t sou g ht eq u itab le r e l i e f. I n so r u l i n g , th e C o u r tst r u c k d o w n th e N i n t h C i r c u i t ’s at t em ptt o c i rc um ven t42 U. S. C. § 20 00 e- 5( g) ( 2) ( A ) by h ol di ng th a tWa l

- Ma r th a d a s t a t u t o r y r i g h tt o a v o i d eq u ita b le d am age s by s howi ng that“i tt ook an adve rs e em pl oym en t act ion f or any reas on o th er than disc ri m inat ion. ” D u kes , 131 S. Ct. at 2 5 6 0- 61 ( em phasis add ed). Charter O ne has no such st atutory r ight because both c las se s are s eeking o nly m onetary relief thro u g h a R u le 23 (b)(3) class. th at th ere are at l east f o u r w ays in w hich plaintiff s we r e de ni e d o v e r t i me, a nd s i ft i ngthr o ugh s uc h i ndi v i dua l i z e d e v i de nc e s ho ul d p r e c l ud e a c o mm o na l i t y fi nd

i ng . S i mi l a r l y f o rthe ABM c l a s s , C hart e rOn e c o nt e nd s th at a factfi nd er w ou ld be req uired to ind ivi d u all y d eterm i ne wh etherea ch A BM per f or m ed non- exem pt dutie s. 7 The defe nd ant m ake s o ne additi onalar gum ent r egar ding th e AB M cl ass . N am el y, Charte r One bra nch m anage rs ar e v est ed with the sa m e k i nd o fdi scr eti on a s th e st o r e m an ag er s i n D uk es and such di scr eti on l i m i ts the abi l i ty ofthe cour t t o fi nd co m m on cl ai m s. Des pi te Charte r One’ s be ste ff o r ts t o fi t th e pr es en t c a s e i nt o the D uk es m ol d, ther e a re si gni fi cant di stincti ons. P erhaps the m osti m port ant di stincti on i s the si ze ofthe cl ass and the ty p e of proo fthe D uk es p lai nt iffs w er e re q u ire d to offe r. See, e . g., Yo ungblo o d v . Fam ily18 N o. 10

- 3848 D ollar Stores, Inc. , N o . 09 Ci v . 3 1 7 6 ( R MB ) , 2 0 1 1 WL 45 9755 5, a t * 4 ( S

. D. N
. Y. Oc t. 4, 2 01 1) ( di st i ng uishi ng D uk es o n the g r o und tha t N ew Yo r k ’ s ve r si on o fthe FLSA does notr equi re “a n exam i nation of the s ubj ecti ve in te n t b eh in d m illion s o f ind ivid u al e m p loy m en t d ec isio n s” ); B oua pha keo v

. Tyson Food s, Inc. , N o. 5: 07- cv- 0400 9- J A J, 20 11 W L 3 793962, at* 2 ( N
. D. I owa A ug. 25 , 20 11) ( re aso ni ng tha t be cause “ D uk es was a Ti tl e VI Ic as e, the focus of th e inqu iry in resolvi ng each i nd ivid ua l’ s cl ai m was ‘ th e r ea so n fo r[th e] pa r ti cul are m pl o y m en t dec i si o n’ ”)

. In D uk es , 1. 5 m i l l i on nati onw i de cla im ants w ere requ ired to p rove th at t h o u san d s of store m an agers had the s am e di scr i m inato ryi ntent i n prefer ring m en over w om en f or p r o m otions an d pa y raises. H ere, th ere ar e 1,12 9 H ou rly c las s m em b er s an d su b st an tia lly f ew e r AB Ms , a l l o f wh o m a r e b a s e d o n l y i n I l l i n o i s. The pla i nti ff s’ I M W L cl ai m r equi re s no pro ofo fi nd ivi du al disc ri m i natory intent. Instea d, the pl ai nti ff s’ theo ry, su ppo r te d b y nine ty
- si x H ou r l y c l as s dec l ar at i o ns a nd tw enty- f our A BM cl ass decl ar ati ons, i s that Chart er One e nf o r ce d a n u noffi ci alpo l i cyi n I l l i no i s den y i ng cer tain em plo yee s o ver ti m e pay that w as law fully due. A l lni nety-s i x H ourly decl ar ati ons speci fi cal l y a l l ege th atthe de cl ar an t ha d b een de ni ed l awful l y due o ve r ti m e com p en sa ti o n. Ei g ht y - ni ne de cl ar at i o ns fur th era l l eg e th atChart erOne ha d a po l i cyi ns truct i ng th e dec l ar an t no t to r ec o r d e arne d o ve r ti m e. M ea nw hi l e, the m aj or i ty ofthe A BM decl ar ants ass er t that th ey pri m ar i l y per f or m ed non- exem pt w or k. A l though there m i g htb e sl i g htv ar i at i o ns i n h o w Char te rOne en f o r ce d i ts o ve r ti m e po l i cy, b o th c l as se s m aint ain aN o. 10

- 3848 19

com m on cl ai m thatCharte r One bro adlyenf or ced an u n l a wfu lp o l i c y de n y i n ge mp l o y e e s e a r n e d

- o v e r t i me com pensati on. Thi s unoffi ci alpol i cy is the co m m on an sw er th at p ot en tia lly d riv es th e re so l u t i o n of th is litig at ion
. D uk es , 13 1 S

. Ct. at25 51. Appel l an t’ s fi na lc r i ti ci sm o fth e A BM c l as s equa ting W al

- M ar t m an ag er s’ pr o m o ti o n di sc r et i o n wi ththe l i m i ted di scr eti on vest ed i n CharterOne br anch m an ag er s is m isp lac ed . Sp ec if i c a lly, th e p lain tiffs in D uk es all eged th a t t h e d iscretion given to W al- M art m anage rs i s what cause d fe m al e em plo yee s to experi ence d isp ar at e t re at m en t. Id. a t 2548. Th e Sup rem e C ou rt w as cl ear l y unabl e t o i nfe r a co m m on c l ai m fro m an all egation th at on i ts face su ggeste d st o r e m an agers ex er c ise d sign ifica n t d isc re tio n . Id. a t 2 5 5 4
. He r e, t he A BM cl ass co ntends, and i s s up port ed i n pa rtbytwentyfou r A B M d ec lar at ion s, th at a c om p an y-w id e p olic y in Illino is re q u ire s A B M s t o p er for m n on - e x em p t w or k in vi ol ati on of t he I M W L. A l though there ag ai n m i ght b e sli gh t variations in the exac t d ut ies that eac h A B M perf o r ms fr o m br a nc h t o b r a n c h, th e A B Ms ma i n t a i n a c o mmonc l a i m t ha tu no ffi c i a lc o mpa nyp o l i c y c o mpel l ed them to per f or m duti es f orwh i ch theysho u ld have been enti tl ed to co l l ect overt i m e. Contr ar y t o Ch ar ter One’s ass er ti on, an ind i vi du al i zed as ses sm ent o feach A BM’ s j o b du t i e s i s no t r e l e v a nt t o a c l a i m that a n u n l a w fu lc o m p a n y - w i d e p o l i c y e x i s t s t o d e n y A B Ms ove rt i m e pay. Ult i ma t e l y, th e g l u e h o l d i n gt o g e th e rth e Ho u r l y a nd A BM c lass es i s ba sed o n the com m on quest i on o f wh e th e ra n u n l a wfu lo v e r t i me p o l i c y p r e v e n t e d e m-20 N o. 10

- 3848 p l o y e e s fr o m c o l l e c t i n g l a wfu l l y e a r n e d o v e r t i me c o mpensati on. Fo r that re aso n, we fi nd thatthe d istr i ct cour t’ s ce rt i fi cati on o rdersa ti sfi es the c om m onal i ty prer equi si te and the di str i ct c ourtpro perl y gra n ted cl as s ce r ti fi ca ti o n.

III. C ON CLU SI ON Forthe f or egoi ng r eas ons, we A FFIRM the dist ri ct cour t’ s ord ercer ti fyi ng an H ourly a nd A BM cl ass f or the pl ai nti ff s’ I M W L cl ai m s.

1- 27- 12