Ornelas v. Tapestry, Inc.

Background

John Ornelas brought this wage-and-hour action against Tapestry, Inc. He alleged that Tapestry required non-exempt, hourly employees at its Stuart Weitzman retail stores to undergo security inspections before leaving the store and did not pay them for that time. He also alleged that the policy interfered with meal and rest breaks. Tapestry removed the case from Alameda County Superior Court to the federal court.

Ornelas moved to certify a class and a security-check subclass. While the motions were pending, the court granted Tapestry summary judgment on the meal-break, rest-break, and derivative-penalty claims. The only remaining claims were for unpaid minimum wages and overtime.

Class Definition and Rule 23 Requirements

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 requires a proposed class to satisfy four requirements: numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. For certification under Rule 23(b)(3), common questions must predominate over individual questions, and a class action must be superior to other methods of resolving the dispute.

The court found that Ornelas’s proposed class definitions were not sufficiently ascertainable because they required determining whether a person had a valid claim before determining whether that person belonged in the class. The court therefore adopted this revised definition:

“All current and former non-exempt retail store employees employed by defendant Tapestry, Inc., at a Stuart Weitzman store in California from September 4, 2014 through the date of this order.”

The court found numerosity satisfied based on an estimate of 186 potential class members. It also found commonality because Tapestry’s manager’s and operations manuals required bag and coat checks for employees leaving for a break or at the end of a shift. The central common question was whether class members underwent those checks while off the clock.

The court found typicality satisfied because Ornelas’s claims arose from Tapestry’s uniform security-check policies. It also found adequate representation because Ornelas and his counsel shared the class’s interests and were prepared to prosecute the action.

Predominance and Superiority

The court rejected Tapestry’s argument that its policy did not require off-the-clock checks and that it prohibited off-the-clock work. The court said those arguments concerned the merits of the claims rather than whether the claims could be tried together.

The court also rejected Tapestry’s argument that differences among employees defeated predominance. The evidence showed variations in whether checks occurred, where they occurred, how often they occurred, and how long they took. But nearly all of the employee declarations submitted by the parties stated that the employees had undergone at least one bag or coat check while off the clock. The court concluded that these differences primarily concerned damages, and damages calculations alone did not defeat certification. The court stated that a claims process could address the individual differences.

The court likewise held that Tapestry’s proposed de minimis defense did not defeat predominance. A de minimis defense argues that work time was so brief or irregular that it need not be compensated. The court noted that California law had rejected the federal de minimis rule for unpaid-wage claims and had left open a narrower question about extremely brief or irregular activities. The court held that whether that defense applied to Tapestry’s required security checks was itself a common question suitable for classwide treatment.

The court found that a class action was superior because the individual recoveries were relatively small and resolving the common issues together would promote efficiency and reduce litigation costs.

Disposition

Judge William Alsup certified the revised class. Certification was limited to claims for unpaid minimum wages and overtime arising from Tapestry’s security-check policy. The court denied the balance of the motion. It appointed Ornelas as class representative and Boyamian Law, Inc., and The Law Offices of Thomas W. Falvey as class counsel. The parties were ordered to submit a proposed class notice, distribution plan, and opt-out timeline within two weeks of the order.