Tag Archives: “Rule 23(a)”

New York District Court Dismisses Putative ERISA Class Alleging Illegal Kickbacks

By Greg Mersol on March 5, 2014 Posted in ERISA, Rule 23

Sometimes in the rush to meet Rule 23(a) and (b)’s requirements, what gets overlooked is whether there is any underlying claim in the first place. In a refreshing opinion, the Southern District of New York disposed of a claimed ERISA class action for the reason that, irrespective of any class allegations, the defendant was not … Continue Reading

Indiana District Court Finds Private Equity Firm Potentially Liable in WARN Class Action

By Greg Mersol on October 1, 2013 Posted in Rule 23, WARN Act

This seems to be the month for class action cases presenting unusual issues in combination. Last week we wrote about a class action disparate impact claim of disability discrimination against the obese in which the court ultimately awarded sanctions against the plaintiff. (Rare on all three counts). This week we have a WARN Act class … Continue Reading

Choice of Law/Statute of Limitations Thwarts Class

By Greg Mersol on July 30, 2013 Posted in Rule 23

Differences among putative class members are frequently the heart of the employer’s defense to a class action lawsuit. Such differences implicate the elements of commonality and typicality and possibly even adequacy of representation under Rule 23(a) and also erode or destroy the predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3). These differences usually spring from the … Continue Reading

Court Refuses To Certify Class of Unpaid Student Interns

By Greg Mersol on May 13, 2013 Posted in Rule 23

Student internships can provide worthwhile benefits to the students involved, who gain experience, contacts, and accomplishments to place on their resumes. Employers, too, can benefit from the work and insight of the intern, but may also want to take advantage of the benefits of free intern time. Recognizing the benefit to the interns, the Department … Continue Reading

California Court Denies Certification of Class of Costco Managers

By Greg Mersol on October 13, 2011 Posted in FLSA, Retail, Rule 23

California has been the focus of numerous class action wage and hour suits involving retail managers and assistant managers. One reason is that California law defines the executive exemption slightly, but significantly differently than, federal law. Under both the FLSA and California law, courts will consider whether the employee’s “primary duty” is management. While under … Continue Reading

California District Court Denies Certification of Proposed Class Over Employee Expenses

By Greg Mersol on August 30, 2011 Posted in Class Certification, Retail, Rule 23

A class action over socks?! Employers operating in California are subject many state-law employment regulations and the resulting ever-present threat of class action litigation. Suits over employment practice seem to come in waves based on industry and type of employee (e.g. insurance claims adjusters, retail managers) or specific policies (such as the current spate over … Continue Reading

Supreme Court Reverses Ninth Circuit in Dukes v. Wal-Mart

By Greg Mersol on June 20, 2011 Posted in Uncategorized

Today, June 20, 2011, the Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated decision in Wal-Mart Stores Inc v Dukes.pdf Case No. 10-277 (U.S. S. Ct. June 20, 2011). The Court not only reversed the Ninth Circuit, but issued several clear pronouncements regarding the plaintiff’s burdens and the quality of evidence necessary to certify an employment class. … Continue Reading

South Carolina Court Certifies Race Discrimination Action

By Greg Mersol on March 7, 2011 Posted in Discrimination, Rule 23, Wage and Hour

As many of the postings in this blog reflect, there has been a veritable flood of class and collective actions asserting wage and hour violations. But even apart from Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 603 F.3d 571 (9th Cir.), cert. granted, 131 S.Ct. 795 (2010), now pending before the United States Supreme Court, discrimination cases … Continue Reading

District Court Denies Certification of Class of BP Oil Platform Workers Claiming Radiation Exposure

By Greg Mersol on January 31, 2011 Posted in Rule 23

In the wake (no pun intended) of the Horizon gulf oil spill, what could be worse than (a) representing BP; (b) in Louisiana; (c) on a case involving personal injuries allegedly sustained on an oil platform? How about making the injury one for alleged radiation exposure? And the defendant wins! We don’t ordinarily comment on … Continue Reading