Last month, the First Circuit affirmed an order granting class certification (and the judgment in favor of the class) in a tip-pooling case brought under Massachusetts law. Matamoros v. Starbucks Corp., ___ F.3d ___, 2012 WL 5458443 (1st Cir. Nov. 9, 2012).
The opinion's language on supposedly "under-inclusive" class definitions nicely bookends the Seventh Circuit's language on "overbroad" classes a couple of weeks earlier:
Id. at *9.
In a last-ditch effort to defeat class certification, [defendant] posits that a class action will not resolve the rights of all interested persons [if certain employees are not included in the class definition]. This prognostication constitutes little more than whistling past the graveyard. …. [T]he mere fact that a class action will not resolve every conceivable issue touching upon a challenged policy or practice does not require a court to throw out the baby with the bath water. So it is here: considerations of fairness and judicial economy are well-served by resolving [the smaller group of employees’] claims in a class action.