The recent ruling in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case, Ariana Miles v. Kirkland’s Stores, Inc. (2024), makes clear that plaintiff employees seeking to certify a class under FRCP 23 on an alleged facially violative policy are not guaranteed success. Instead, the Ninth Circuit made clear that of relevance to the analysis is whether the employer defendant uniformly enforced the policy, or whether an analysis of the claim would require a detailed individualized factual analysis, making certification on a class-wide basis inappropriate. This decision is particularly significant for employers and legal practitioners, including Los Angeles Wage and Hour Mediators, who navigate the intricacies of these types of employment laws.
The Core of the Case
At the heart of the dispute were two policies implemented by Kirkland’s Stores:
- Rest Breaks: Kirkland’s required employees to remain on store premises during their rest breaks. This mandate was contested by the plaintiff, Ariana Miles, who argued that the policy was unlawful on its face as it effectively denied the employee control over their own break period.
- Bag Checks: Kirkland’s required employees to be subject to bag checks while off the clock. Plaintiff Miles aregued that this policy resulted in underpayment of wages to employees as the checks occurred outside paid hours.
The Stance on Class Certification
Plaintiff Miles sought to represent a class for claims related to both policies, but the district court denied class certification on both issues. However, Miles’ appeal to the Ninth Circuit brought nuanced interpretations and a significant ruling:
- Rest Break Claim: The appellate court reversed the district court’s decision, pointing out that Kirkland’s enforced the rest break policy uniformly across its stores. This uniform application of enforcement created a common legal issue that was deemed suitable for class action.
- Bag Check Claim: Conversely, the appellate court upheld the denial for class certification regarding the bag check policy. It was found that the application of this policy was inconsistent across different store locations, with variations in how and when the checks were conducted. This inconsistency meant that the bag check policy did not present a common legal issue applicable to the proposed class.
Implications for Employers and Legal Practitioners
The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Miles v. Kirkland’s clarifies the the standards for certification of wage and hour claims based on an alleged unlawful policy. It’s holding makes clear that a facially invalid policy on its own will not necessarily result in certification of a class. Instead, the court’s focus should be on whether the policy was applied and enforced uniformly. If not, the claim may be too fact-specific to be decided on a class-wide basis.
For legal practitioners, including wage and hour mediators and arbitrators handling these types of cases, this case highlights the importance of scrutinizing the uniformity of policy implementation when evaluating the viability of class action claims. The decision sets a precedent, indicating that while a uniformly applied policy can form the basis of a class action, inconsistencies in policy enforcement can hinder class certification.