The Bureau of National Affairs, June 30, 2014 (link to PDF)
Reproduced with permission from Daily Labor Report, 125 DLR A-2, 6/30/14. Copyright 2014 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com
A federal judge in California granted class certification June 27 to some 240 home value appraisers alleging that a Bank of America Corp. subsidiary misclassified them as overtime-exempt under state law (Boyd v. Bank of Am. Corp., C.D. Cal., No. 13-00561, 6/27/14).
In the most recent decision involving Bank of America’s LandSafe Appraisal Services Inc., Judge David O. Carter of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California found these California appraisers met class certification requirements under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He certified a California class and two subclasses.
The appraisers claimed that LandSafe improperly denied them overtime, rest breaks and itemized wage statements in violation of the California Labor Code.
They formed a second group of appraisal employees who challenged the financial service company’s application of administrative or professional exemptions, with a separate group of reviewers receiving the goahead on their $5.8 million settlement June 23 (124 DLR A-2, 6/27/14).
Commonality Shown. The judge found commonality requirements satisfied when ”Plaintiffs have shown, and LandSafe does not seem to dispute, that members of the California Class regularly work overtime without receiving premium pay or meal and rest periods.”
State court precedent allows certification when ”even a single common question will do,” Carter wrote.
The court said for certification purposes in terms of the professional exemption, ”this action raises the common question, for example, of whether the members of the California Class are ‘primarily engaged in an occupation commonly recognized as a learned . . . profession’ in light of the minimum standards for licensing, certification, and continuing education.”
Adequacy of Representatives. The court rejected the company’s argument that some proposed class representatives cannot adequately advance class claims.
Just because LandSafe alleged that Terry Boyd may have been an unethical employee doesn’t automatically mean that he offered or will offer inconsistent depositional testimony, which is the focus of a certification inquiry, the judge found.
He also deemed Ethel Parks adequate despite remaining questions about prudential standing based on her omission of the suit in bankruptcy proceedings. Likewise, Linda Zanko’s ”temporary health issues do not render her inadequate,” the court said.
Common Questions Predominate. Regarding failure to supply itemized wage statements under Section 226 of the California Labor Code, the judge agreed with other courts that the newly amended Section 226 ”requires only a showing that an employee could not ‘promptly and easily determine from the wage statement alone’ the amount of gross or net payments made during a pay period.”
Carter found that LandSafe imprecisely stated California law. In Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. San Diego County Superior Court, 273 P.3d 513, 18 WH Cases2d 1852 (Cal. 2012) (71 DLR AA-1, 4/12/12), the California Supreme Court established that an employer is obligated to relieve employees of all duty during meal or rest breaks. But employers need not monitor that nowork is performed during meal or rest breaks, Carter wrote.
”Here, even if the Court accepts LandSafe’s assertions that Residential Appraisers, who worked from home, had time to take breaks and LandSafe never prevented them from taking those breaks, the threshold common question remains: did LandSafe relieve its employees of all duty so that they could take their meal periods and rest breaks?” the judge said.
Bryan Schwartz Law and Schonbrun DeSimons Seplow Harris & Hoffman LLP represented the appraisers. McGuire Woods LLP represented the Bank of America companies.
By Anna Kwidzinski
Contact the reporter:
Anna Kwidzinski in Washington
Contact the editor:
Susan J. McGolrick at
Text of the order is available online.
When no other attorney would touch my case, Bryan took it on with zeal. Since then, the EEOC certified a class action and has ruled in our favor in every motion the other side has thrown at us. A five-star rating does not come close…
I was fortunate to have found Bryan Schwartz Law while searching for reputable and reliable law firms in the Oakland area that specialized in labor law, and I couldn’t be more pleased by the results they secured for my family on my father’s behalf! After…
Bryan's firm came highly recommended to deal with an employment discrimination and harassment case. Bryan and his staff were very professional, ethical, extremely organized and diligent. They are strong advocates who worked extremely hard to get me a very fair resolution to my case. I…
Bryan Schwartz is an attorney who gives good, sound advice and empowers you to believe in your convictions. I reached out to him because no other attorney wanted to assist me. Bryan has been my advocate for the last six years. He is compassionate, empathetic…
Bryan Schwartz is without a doubt a fantastic attorney. As tenacious as he is intelligent, I would absolutely recommend his services to anyone seeking justice. Not only is his legal expertise top notch, his interpersonal skills with his clients are superb as well. Working with…
Bryan and his team were highly recommended by a friend and another attorney. I reached out to Bryan when I was sick, hurting and afraid, not knowing what to expect or how to ask for help. Bryan offered to help, he and his team fought…
When I first met Bryan, and the team at Bryan Schwartz Law, I was blown away by how understanding, sympathetic, and outright dismayed they were to the unlawful situation my coworkers and I were (to say the least) uncomfortably having to endure and work through.…
Bryan Schwartz represented me successfully in mediating my age discrimination claim against a large employer....[T]here can be few lawyers with greater legal acumen or a more relentless drive to get an acceptable result for their clients. Bryan is all business and probably works too hard.…
I could never imagine having any other attorney on my side when I needed someone. This office is beyond professional and intelligent from the person answering the phone right to the attorneys. These attorneys will fight tooth and nail for you.
These guys were amazing. Just on the ball, knowledgeable and friendly as hell. I presented my case over the phone and I immediately got some preliminary feedback which was awesome. I was asked for more details which I provided via email the next day. Two…
Schedule an initial consultation to have Bryan Schwartz Law
evaluate your situation.
*Your submission of an intake request form does not guarantee that Bryan Schwartz Law will take your case or provide legal advice. You must be offered and sign a representation agreement with the firm before you will receive any legal advice.
How did we do?
Note: Your review may be shared publicly.