Information and Commentary on Class Action Cases Affecting Employers

Employment Class Action Blog

Home | Employment Class Action Blog

Jury trials of employment class actions are rare.&nbsp; If a case is certified, oftentimes the risk of going forward is simply too great for the employer, and it settles.&nbsp; Three recent cases, however, reflect that in those few class action cases that are tried, a plaintiff's verdict is far from a certainty, particularly in the wage and hour arena.
Most recently, in Johnston v. The Rawlings Co.LLC, Case No. 08-0800 (Oldham Cty., Kentucky, Circuit Court), a&nbsp;class of 360 medical claims examiners sought $12 million arising out of their alleged misclassification as exempt employees.&nbsp; Following a 3-week trial in Kentucky state court, the jury returned a defense verdict on May 27, 2011.
One day earlier, in Lopaz v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Case No. 8:06-CV-459 (D. Neb), a class of hourly meat processing employees contended that they were not properly paid for all hours of work.&nbsp; They specifically challenged a "gang time" system used by the employer that they claimed deprived them of pay for donning and doffing, sanitizing equipment, and similar duties.&nbsp; On May 26, a federal jury returned a verdict in favor of the employer.&nbsp; What makes this case especially interesting is that the employer had previously lost such a case in Kansas earlier in 2011 and had settled a similar case with the United States Department of Labor.&nbsp; Further, the attorneys for the plaintiffs had previously recovered a $32 million verdict in a wage and hour case against Family Dollar Store.
Earlier this year, in Henry v. Quicken Loans (E.D. Mich), a group of mortgage loan officers brought suit against Quicken Loans, contending that they were misclassified as administrative exempt employees and were owed overtime.&nbsp; They argued, essentially, that they were actually salespeople, and lacked any significant discretionary authority.&nbsp; They also relied on a 2010 U.S. Department of Labor interpretation that stated that such employees most likely were not administratively exempt.&nbsp; Following a four-week trial, the jury returned a defense verdict on March 14, 2011, and also returned jury interrogatories reflecting its finding that the employees performed duties that were administratively exempt.
The Bottom Line:&nbsp; Class action trials involve very high stakes, but recent history shows that employers, as well as plaintiffs, may prevail.

Juries Hand Employers Class Action Wage and Hour Victories