A state appellate court has ruled that timecard evidence is sufficient to deny class action certification in a case where the employer was able to show through timecards that employees were entitled to additional meal breaks.
The Second Appellate District issued its unanimous ruling in Salazar vs. See’s Candy Shops late last month.
Such decisions show that time documentation can provide better evidence for the defense than the plaintiffs, Maryann Marino, Southern California regional director of California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA), told the Northern California Record by email.
“Some plaintiffs’ attorneys think that if you can just dig deep enough into a defendant’s records, you can always find something to support a class action claim—how many others with evidence like this felt it was wiser or cheaper to pay a quick settlement than to incur years of litigation and untold thousands of dollars in unproductive expense just to prove they were right?” Marino said.
“This case sends a message that the same tool plaintiffs have used for decades (timecards and other records) can prove that an employer was indeed providing a second meal break, thus defeating certification, even if compliance was not perfect.”
Marino noted questions persist as to who should pay for all of this work, because to make this sort of showing, an exhaustive and costly review of time records is required.
“It obviously cost the employer a great deal to prove that the class should not be certified, but of course, those expenses will almost never be recoverable from an employee who files a claim (or the attorney who represented him), so this means that we all pay for this costly question to be settled,” Marino said. “Such claims are often motivated by an individual’s quest for cash, yet society and consumers all too frequently shoulder the expense. In 2021, there has to be a better way. In California, we all pay a lawsuit tax of $574 per man, woman and child for abusive litigation.”
A simple omission on a policy statement should not be enough evidence to force a class action lawsuit, Marino said.
“There needs to be better safeguards, potentially including an early neutral evaluation of the claims, to prevent a case from reaching levels like this,” Marino said.
“It may be appropriate to require a plaintiff to ‘put their money where their mouth is’ and provide at least some meaningful assurance to protect a defendant from this significant expense if preliminary evidence suggests a claim is unlikely to be successful but is nevertheless allowed to proceed. Without that, the countless shakedowns (in which attorneys suggest they will file class actions if a few thousand dollars are not received to settle claims) will only continue.”
While both the plaintiff and defense still have a limited time in which to request review of the decision, neither had as of May 21, according to the Second Appellate District docket.
“While it is hoped that rulings of this nature will make claimants and their attorneys more cautious (particularly if there is meaningful accountability), too often, many just hope their next case will fall with another judge who sees things differently,” Marino said.
Even in 2021, Marino noted much of the legal community still handles cases using the same tools and methodology of the 1900s.
“There has to be a better way,” Marino said. “This case was filed in 2017 and took untold thousands of dollars to show that the claim in question should not be allowed to proceed. This is happening all over the country, and we wonder why the prices consumers have to pay are so high.”
California is home to 50 percent of the nation’s class action cases, according to an analysis posted on Law360.com
“There are unquestionably class actions which are successful and prompt important changes,” Marino said. “But many hundreds have failed, and we all pay the cost for that. While the American system (i.e., in which parties are normally required to bear their own legal expense, in contrast to a ‘loser pays’ system) is thought to provide greater access to justice than many others, it is not without areas where reform or improvement is critically needed to prevent injustice and harm.
“How many other companies which might have prevailed (as the defendant did here) simply prefer to pay a settlement to avoid providing sensitive information which can be shared with others? The result must be a bittersweet and hollow sense of vindication for the defendant, its employees and shareholders.”