Wilson v. Star
- Laurel Beeler
- 3:21-cv-07326
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 12
In Max Wilson v. Delta Star, Judge Beeler denied class certification because the non-union plaintiff was not typical of a mostly union class.
Max Wilson, Delta Star, Inc., and the proposed classes of current and former non-exempt California employees, most of whom were union members covered by collective bargaining agreements.
What happened
Max Wilson sued his former employer, Delta Star, in a proposed class action alleging California wage-and-hour violations. He asked the court to certify nine groups covering issues including time rounding, meal breaks, bonus calculations, tool reimbursement, final wages, wage statements, and unfair competition.
Delta Star argued that Wilson could not represent a class in which about 90 percent of members were union employees covered by collective bargaining agreements. Those agreements included grievance and arbitration procedures and provisions governing subjects such as wages, overtime, meal periods, and tool reimbursement. Wilson argued that employees shared the same schedules, supervisors, policies, and timekeeping practices.
Judge Laurel Beeler denied the motion for class certification. The court held that Wilson’s claims were not typical of the union members’ claims because he was not covered by a collective bargaining agreement and therefore did not face the same exhaustion, arbitration, and labor-law preemption issues. The court did not decide the preemption arguments because the typicality ruling resolved the motion.
The detailed version
- Wilson v. Star · No. 3:21-cv-07326
- Laurel Beeler
- Dec. 18, 2025
Background
Max Wilson brought a proposed class action against Delta Star, Inc., alleging violations of California wage-and-hour laws. Wilson worked for Delta Star as a non-exempt hourly employee from approximately February 2017 through August 2021. He sought certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for nine subclasses involving:
- Rounding work hours to scheduled shift times;
- Automatic 30-minute meal-period deductions;
- Failure to provide full, uninterrupted meal periods before the end of the fifth hour of work;
- Failure to include non-discretionary bonuses in overtime-rate calculations;
- Failure to include non-discretionary bonuses in sick-pay calculations;
- Failure to reimburse necessary hand tools for employees earning less than twice the minimum wage;
- Failure to pay all wages due at termination;
- Inaccurate wage statements; and
- Unfair competition under California law.
Workplace Policies and Collective Bargaining Agreements
Delta Star had four sequential collective bargaining agreements, or CBAs, with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 1245 during the proposed class period. The court found that approximately 90 percent of the putative class members were union members covered by those agreements. Wilson was never a union member.
The CBAs contained provisions addressing wages, overtime, tool reimbursement, and other employment conditions. They also established a multi-step grievance procedure ending in final and binding arbitration. Delta Star’s handbooks stated that union employees should refer to the applicable CBA where its policies differed from the employee handbook.
Union and non-union hourly employees worked the same schedules and had the same supervisors, job titles, scheduled meal and rest breaks, and timekeeping method. Delta Star required hourly employees to punch in and out using paper timeclocks. The company used handwritten total hours on timecards for payroll and standard shift schedules, prohibited off-the-clock work, and maintained electronic and physical time records.
For employees who remained on the premises during lunch, Delta Star automatically deducted 30 minutes. The company did not keep written meal-period records for those employees. Delta Star had a policy of paying premium pay when notified that a meal or rest break was missed.
Delta Star also paid monthly manufacturing bonuses. The company did not include those bonuses in the regular rate used to calculate overtime or sick pay. Wilson was eligible for and received four of those bonuses. The 2021 and 2024 CBAs included provisions for reimbursement or replacement of certain required tools.
Arguments About Certification
Delta Star opposed certification, arguing that there was no uniform unlawful policy applicable to the proposed classes, that individual issues would predominate, and that Wilson was not a typical or adequate representative because he was not unionized while most proposed class members were. Delta Star also argued that claims involving meal deductions, regular-rate calculations, and tool reimbursement were preempted by the CBAs or section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act.
Wilson argued that common questions predominated because employees were subject to the same policies and practices. He also argued that his non-union status did not prevent him from representing the class and that preemption should not be considered at the class-certification stage.
Court’s Analysis
Rule 23(a)(3) requires the claims of the proposed class representative to be typical of the class. The court explained that typicality requires the representative’s interests to align with those of absent class members, although the claims do not have to be identical. Rule 23(a)(4) also requires the representative to fairly and adequately protect the class’s interests.
The court held that Wilson’s claims were not typical of the claims of the proposed class because he was not covered by a CBA. Wilson could pursue his state-law claims without first exhausting the CBA’s mandatory grievance and arbitration procedures. By contrast, approximately 90 percent of the proposed class was subject to those procedures.
The court concluded that this difference created defenses applicable to the union members but not to Wilson, including failure to exhaust the grievance process and preemption under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. Because these issues affected the union members’ claims differently, Wilson could not satisfy the typicality requirement. The court also held that the same union/non-union divide defeated adequacy of representation.
The court considered Delta Star’s preemption arguments but expressly declined to decide them at this stage. It said preemption could create additional individualized issues or unique defenses relevant to predominance and typicality, but the court did not need to resolve the issue because Wilson failed the typicality requirement.
At the hearing, Wilson suggested that, if certification were denied because of the difference between union and non-union employees, the court should at least certify a class of non-union employees. The court did not address that proposal because the motion had been based on Wilson’s representing the entire proposed class and the issue had not been fully briefed.
Disposition
Because Wilson did not meet Rule 23’s typicality requirement, Judge Laurel Beeler denied the motion for class certification and stated that the order resolved ECF No. 76. The order did not decide the underlying wage-and-hour claims or the preemption arguments.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.