Zabeena Maharaj v. Hertz Corp.

Background

Plaintiffs Zabeena Maharaj and Rodolfo Schulz are managerial employees of The Hertz Corporation. They alleged that Hertz classified Operations Managers and Customer Service Managers as exempt from federal overtime protections and California Labor Code protections, even though they primarily performed work expected of hourly employees. They asserted nine claims under California wage laws, California’s unfair competition law, and the Private Attorneys General Act.

Plaintiffs moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) to certify a class of all people employed by Hertz in California as exempt-classified Operations Managers from June 30, 2021, through the date of class certification. They also asked the court to appoint Maharaj and Schulz as class representatives and their attorneys as class counsel.

Evidence and proposed class

Plaintiffs relied on testimony from Hertz’s designated knowledgeable witness, Greg Boardman, Hertz’s discovery responses, and declarations from proposed class members. Boardman testified that Operations Managers’ primary responsibilities generally remained constant across locations, although the emphasis and intensity of those duties could vary based on location volume and staffing. He also testified that Hertz classified all California Operations Managers as exempt under a corporate-level decision.

Plaintiffs’ declarants stated that they spent at least half of their time doing non-exempt work. Schulz estimated that he spent about 80 percent of his time on that work, including washing cars. Hertz submitted deposition testimony and declarations from Operations Managers, supervisors, and coworkers. Some of Hertz’s declarants stated that they spent no more than 20 percent of their time doing non-exempt work, and some supervisors stated that Operations Managers were not expected to spend most of their time performing hourly work.

Rule 23 requirements

Rule 23(a) requires numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequate representation. Rule 23(b)(3) additionally requires that common questions of law or fact predominate over individual questions and that a class action be the superior way to resolve the dispute.

The court found that Plaintiffs satisfied numerosity because Hertz had employed 160 Operations Managers in California since June 30, 2021. The court also found that Maharaj and Schulz adequately represented the proposed class. It further found that commonality and typicality were met because the proposed class members were subject to the same exempt classification and Plaintiffs presented common evidence about job descriptions, training, and the duties expected of Operations Managers.

Predominance

The court concluded that Plaintiffs did not meet Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement. For purposes of the motion, the court assumed that the executive exemption in Title 8, section 11090(1)(A)(1) of the California Code of Regulations applied. The court noted that the parties’ filings did not clearly identify the applicable exemption, and that Plaintiffs did not disagree with Hertz’s identification of the transportation-industry executive exemption.

The exemption includes several requirements. The requirement central to Plaintiffs’ theory was whether Operations Managers were “primarily engaged” in exempt duties. That inquiry requires examining the employee’s actual work during the workweek, the amount of time spent on that work, the employer’s realistic expectations, and the realistic requirements of the job.

The court held that the actual work performed could not be established solely through common evidence. Plaintiffs’ evidence consisted mainly of individual employees’ estimates of how they spent their time. The evidence also showed that the emphasis and intensity of Operations Managers’ duties could vary by location. Thus, determining whether each employee was primarily engaged in exempt work would require individualized evidence.

The court likewise found that employer expectations and job requirements involved both common and individual evidence. Hertz had common job descriptions and centralized decisions, but Plaintiffs relied on individual declarations about being directed to perform non-exempt work. Hertz’s supervisors and other declarants gave conflicting accounts about what Operations Managers were expected to do. Plaintiffs did not identify common proof showing that the alleged directions or expectations applied across the proposed class.

The court rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that Hertz’s blanket exempt classification established predominance. A uniform classification policy did not eliminate the need to determine whether class members actually performed similar duties, because the policy might have correctly classified some employees and incorrectly classified others. The court also found that Plaintiffs’ individual time estimates were not representative statistical evidence of the class as a whole.

Request to reopen discovery

In reply, Plaintiffs asked the court to deny class certification without prejudice and require Hertz to produce class-wide versions of tracking data. The court denied that request. It found that Plaintiffs had not explained why they failed to seek the discovery before filing the class-certification motion, despite having had multiple deadline extensions and knowledge that employees used badges and identification numbers for some tasks.

The court also found that the proposed tracking data would not necessarily establish predominance. The data would not show how long employees spent on particular tasks, and Plaintiffs’ evidence indicated that some non-exempt work might not have been recorded under the employee’s own identification number. In addition, time-tracking data would address only part of the inquiry because California law also requires examination of the employer’s realistic expectations and the realistic requirements of the job.

Disposition

The court DENIED Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification because Plaintiffs had not shown that common issues predominated. The court also DENIED Plaintiffs’ request to reopen discovery and require Hertz to produce tracking data. The order disposed of Docket No. 62 and set a further case-management conference for April 9, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. by Zoom video.