Another recent class certification opinion: Bradley v. Networkers Int'l, LLC

In Bradley v. Networkers International LLC, 211 Cal.App.4th 1129 (Dec. 12, 2012, modified Jan. 8, 2013), the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division One) reversed an order denying class certification of wage and hour claims, including meal period and rest break claims, and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. 

The opinion's discussion of predominance is of interest:

Brinker instructs that indetermining whether common or individual issues predominate, a court must focuson the plaintiff's theory of recovery and assess the nature of the legal andfactual disputes likely to be presented under this theory.  Applying this analysis, we again determinethat the trial court erred in concluding that individual issues are likely topredominate on the independent contractor/employee issue.

....

.... The undisputed evidence showed Networkers hadconsistent companywide policies applicable to all employees regarding workscheduling, payments, and work requirements. Whether those policies created an employer-employee relationship, asopposed to an independent contractor relationship, is not before us.  The critical fact is that the evidence likelyto be relied upon by the parties would be largely uniform throughout the class.

....

Networkers argues, and we agreed inour initial opinion, that the issue of which employees had missed breaks andhow many breaks were missed and whether those missed breaks were the result ofNetworkers' lack of a break policy was highly dependent on the testimony ofeach plaintiff, essentially requiring a mini-trial on each class member's caseto determine the eligibility for recovery and the amount of damages to whicheach plaintiff would be entitled. 

However,this argument conflicts with Brinker'sclear holdings that for meal breaks, an employer has an obligation to relieveits employee of all duty, permit the employee to take an uninterrupted30-minute break, and to not impede or discourage the employee from doingso.  (Brinker,supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 1040.) Similarly, an employer has an obligation to provide a rest break, and ifthe employer fails to do so, the employer cannot claim the employee waived thebreak.  (Id. at p. 1033.)  Under thelogic of these holdings, when an employer has not authorized and not providedlegally-required meal and/or rest breaks, the employer has violated the law andthe fact that an employee may have actually taken a break or was able toeat food during the work day does not show that individual issues willpredominate in the litigation.

Slip op. at 21, 24-25, 30-31 (footnote omitted).  Bradley is one of the Brinker "grant and hold" cases, so its discussion of Brinker is of particular interest to those following the post-Brinker opinions. 

UPDATE:  On March 20, 2013, the Supreme Court denied the employer's petition for review in this case.  Therefore, unlike three other post-Brinker opinions, in which denial of class certification was affirmed rather than reversed, Bradley remains a published, citable precedent.