Source: http://www.baileydaily.com/2012/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 04:28:37+00:00

Document:
On October 17, 2012, the Second District (Division 4) published its class certification opinion in Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, __ Cal.App.4th __(2012) [2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 1083], which overturned an order denying class certification of “a class of newspaper home delivery carriers … alleging that AVP improperly classified the carriers as independent contractors rather than employees....” Slip Opinion, at 2. The trial court denied certification based on its conclusion that “there were numerous variations in how the carriers performed their jobs, and therefore common issues did not predominate.” See id. The Court of Appeal disagreed with this assessment, and reversed.
We conclude, however, that those variations do not present individual issues that preclude class certification. Instead, because all of the carriers perform the same job under virtually identical contracts, those variations simply constitute common evidence that tends to show AVP's lack of control over certain aspects of the carriers' work. Similarly, the so-called “secondary factors” that must be considered when determining the primary issue in this case—whether AVP improperly classified the carriers as independent contractors rather than employees—also may be established for the most part through common proof, since almost all of those factors relate to the type of work involved, which is common to the class. Therefore, we hold the trial court erred in finding that the independent contractor-employee issue is not amenable to class treatment.
In denying class certification, the trial court agreed with AVP that no commonality exists regarding AVP's right to control because individualized questions predominate as to who performs the services, when and where they perform the services, and how they perform the services. Many of the court's observations (and AVP's arguments), however, actually point to conflicts in the evidence regarding AVP's right to control rather than individualized questions. For example, the court noted that AVP's home delivery manager declared that AVP does not have a policy or practice to instruct or direct carriers on how to fold and deliver their papers, and some carriers testified that they were never so instructed, but two of the plaintiffs testified that AVP had rules on folding the papers and how to deliver them. Similarly, the court noted that the home delivery manager and some carriers testified that AVP does not require carriers to bag or rubber band the newspapers, but one of the plaintiffs testified that carriers were required to bag them.
Simply put, much of AVP's evidence, upon which the trial court relied, merely contradicts plaintiffs' allegations that AVP had policies or requirements about how carriers must do their jobs. The parties do not argue that some carriers operating under the form agreements are employees while others are not. Both sides argue that AVP has policies that apply to all carriers. The difference between the parties is the content of those policies. Plaintiffs argue that the policies are ones that control the way in which the carriers accomplish their work; AVP argues the policies impose certain requirements about the result of the work but allow the carriers to determine manner and means used to accomplish that result. While there may be conflicts in the evidence regarding whether the policies plaintiffs assert exist, the issue itself is common to the class. Similarly, whether the policies that exist are ones that merely control the result, rather than control the manner and means used to accomplish that result, is an issue that is common to the class.
Thus, the Court’s opinion provides additional authority for the proposition that certification cannot be avoided by an employer submitting “merits-based” evidence seeking to attack its own standardized written policies that form the basis of a plaintiff’s theory of liability.
Central District Certifies Misclassification Class On Behalf of Television Equipment Installers: Sibert v. TV Magic, Inc.
[A]s Plaintiff correctly notes, a "court may consider evidence that may not be admissible at trial," for purposes of certifying a class. Alonzo v. Maximus, Inc., 275 F.R.D. 513, 519 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also In re Coordinated Pretrial Proc. in Petroleum Prods. Antitrust Litig., 691 F.2d 1335, 1342 (9th Cir. 1982) ("[I]n determining whether to certify the class, the district court is bound to take the substantive allegations of the complaint as true . . . ."). The court therefore finds Plaintiff's allegations in his sworn declaration adequate at this stage…. Moreover, although Defendant questions Plaintiff's proof, Defendant does not actually dispute any of these numbers or claims. Accordingly, the court finds that Plaintiff has met Rule 23(a)'s numerosity requirement.
Sibert, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118245, at 4-5.
See Sibert, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118245, at 9-10.
Zaldivar's claims are typical of the 130 non-exempt employees' claims because all were subject to the common pay practices of LLI. Zaldivar has stated that he regularly worked more than forty hours per week and that he received $12,282.87 in sales bonuses that were not incorporated in his regular rate of pay for the purposes of calculating his overtime rate. Zaldivar Decl. ¶¶ 4-5. LLI objects that Zaldivar has failed to prove that his overtime was ever calculated incorrectly. Opp'n at 25. Plaintiffs respond that LLI has failed to produce adequately detailed records and LLI's argument is not relevant to whether class certification is appropriate. Reply at 10. The Court concludes that the evidence presented by Plaintiffs is sufficient for the purposes of class certification. At this stage, it is enough that Plaintiffs have shown that LLI had a uniform practice for calculating overtime pay, that LLI's uniform practice did not account for bonuses and other non-discretionary pay, and that Zaldivar received $12,282.87 in bonuses and claims to have worked more than forty hours per week on several occasions. "In determining the propriety of a class action, the question is not whether the plaintiff[s] . . . have stated a cause of action or will prevail on the merits, but rather whether the requirements of Rule 23 are met[.]" United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Mfg. Energy, Allied Indus. & Serv. Workers Int'l Union v. ConocoPhillips Co., 593 F.3d 802, 808 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 177-78 (1974)).
See Chavez, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40984, at 18-19.
We disagree that section 558 provides for a civil penalty of $50 or $100 only, and that it clearly excludes underpaid wages from the civil penalty. In our view, the language of section 558, subdivision (a), is more reasonably construed as providing a civil penalty that consists of both the $50 or $100 penalty amount and any underpaid wages, with the underpaid wages going entirely to the affected employee or employees as an express exception to the general rule that civil penalties recovered in a PAGA action are distributed 75 percent to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) and 25 percent to the aggrieved employees (§ 2699, subd. (i)).
See Slip Opinion, at 42-44 (emphasis in original).
In addition to the forgoing, the Court’s opinion also has some interesting discussion relating to the construction of the Wage Orders.
Only the Legislature, through enactment of a statute, can create a private right of action to directly enforce an administrative regulation, such as a wage order. (See e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(A) of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act [specifically authorizing a private right of action "based on a violation of this subsection or the regulations prescribed under this subsection . . . ."].) The IWC has not created, and has no power to create, a private right of action for violation of a wage order, and we are aware of no statute that creates a private right of action for a violation of an IWC wage order when the violation at issue is not also a violation of the Labor Code. Absent statutory authorization, there is no right of action under the PAGA to enforce an IWC wage order.
See Slip Opinion, at 23-24.
In support of this construction, the Court noted that the California Supreme Court concluded in Martinez v. Combs, 49 Cal. 4th 35 (2010) that “...‘an employee who sues to recover unpaid minimum wages under section 1194 actually sues to enforce the applicable wage order.’” See Slip Opinion, at 27 fn. 20 (citing Martinez, 49 Cal. 4th at 62).
Second, the Court rejected the proposition that such enabling provisions are to be narrowly interpreted, noting that “[s]tatutes governing conditions of employment are to be construed broadly in favor of protecting employees.” See id., at 56. Here, the defendants had claimed that the plaintiff was not entitled to collect PAGA penalties relating to rest periods under Section 558 – which by its terms applies to violations of “a section of this chapter or any provision regulating hours and days of work in any order of the Industrial Welfare Commission” – because (1) sections 500 through 558 of the Labor Code do not include a statute that requires an employer to provide rest periods, and (2) Section 12 of the Wage Order purportedly is not an order “regulating hours and days of work.” See Slip Opinion, at 56. In rejecting this argument, the Court reasoned that “defendants attribute undue significance to the headings used in the IWC work orders” [See id., at 56], and disregard the broad language of section 558 which “indicates that the Legislature did not intend to limit the application of the civil penalty under section 558 to provisions in IWC order sections entitled ‘Hours and Days of Work’; rather, the language suggests that the penalties were intended to apply to any provision in any order that regulates work hours.” See id. (emphasis in original).
Both of the above points provide important foundational insight into the operation our wage and hour laws, and likely will be addressed by the California Supreme Court in relatively short order when it decides whether Section 1194 or section 218.5 applies to a cause of action alleging meal and rest period violations in awarding attorney's fees (Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection (Case No. S185827)).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 227
 v. 
 v.