Plaintiffs’ Josie Faulkinbury and William Levene appealed an order denying certification of a class of about 4,000 security guards they alleged were denied meal breaks and off-duty rest breaks, weren’t paid all reimbursements and weren’t paid the proper overtime rate due to failure to include non-discretionary bonus pay. An earlier opinion affirmed class certification denial was proper due to potential individualized issues. But that denial came before the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004 (Brinker). On reconsideration, the appeal court concluded the trial court erred by denying class certification of all three subclasses and therefore reverse and remand with directions to certify all three subclasses, in a situation where the company lacked a written rest break policy and required all security guards to remain at their posts. In the overtime issue, the issue was a policy that was alleged to fail to include non-discretionary bonuses.
Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Associates (CA4/3 G041702 5/10/13)