McGhee v. Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company LLC

Background

Derek L. McGhee moved to certify classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The proposed classes consisted of unionized hourly, non-exempt employees employed by Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company LLC at its California refineries and, for some classes, at the Martinez chemical plant.

McGhee alleged that the company’s employment practices violated wage-and-hour requirements by rounding scheduled shift time punches, requiring off-the-clock shift turnovers, discouraging off-premises meal breaks by extending shifts when employees took them, and requiring certain employees to remain on duty or on the premises during rest breaks to monitor for and respond to emergencies.

The proposed classes were:

- Minimum Wage Rounding Class: Current and former unionized hourly, non-exempt employees at the Carson refinery whose scheduled hours were rounded from August 17, 2014, through June 4, 2019. - Minimum Wage Turnover Time Class: Current and former unionized hourly, non-exempt employees at the Carson, Wilmington, and Martinez refineries and the Martinez chemical plant, from August 17, 2014, to January 1, 2018, who worked at least one rotating 12-hour shift. - Discouraged Meal Break Class: Current and former unionized hourly, non-exempt employees at the Carson refinery from August 17, 2014, through April 20, 2020. - On-Duty Rest Class: Current and former unionized hourly, non-exempt laboratory technicians at the Carson, Wilmington, and Martinez refineries and the Martinez chemical plant, from August 17, 2014, through April 20, 2020, who worked at least one shift over 3.5 hours. - Waiting Time Class: Former unionized hourly, non-exempt employees at the listed California locations, from August 17, 2015, through April 20, 2020, who, because they belonged to another proposed class or subclass, allegedly were not paid all wages owed when their employment ended.

Rule 23(a) Requirements

Rule 23(a) requires numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. The court found numerosity because the defendant had 1,766 unionized employees at its California refineries. The court found commonality because the claims challenged employment policies that allegedly applied uniformly to the proposed class members, including the rounding, meal-break, and rest-break practices.

The court found typicality because McGhee worked on-site in California, was paid hourly, and was subject to the alleged uniform wage policies and practices. The court also found that McGhee and his counsel were adequate representatives. It determined that McGhee allegedly suffered injury from the same course of conduct as the class members, had no conflict of interest with them, and was represented by counsel experienced in employment and California wage-and-hour class-action litigation.

Rule 23(b)(3) Requirements

The court analyzed Rule 23(b)(3), which requires that common questions predominate over individual questions and that a class action be the superior method for fairly and efficiently resolving the dispute. The court found that common questions predominated because the claims depended on whether the defendant’s generally applicable policies for rounding work hours, discouraging meal breaks, and requiring on-duty rest breaks were lawful and affected the proposed class members in the alleged manner.

The court also found a class action superior to individual lawsuits. It reasoned that individual class members did not have a strong interest in controlling their own claims and that class actions are favored in wage-and-hour cases when employees might avoid individual suits because of fear of retaliation.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to certify the classes. The court expressly stated that it was making this determination “without any adjudication of the merits” of McGhee’s contentions. The order therefore authorized the specified classes to proceed as class claims but did not decide whether the defendant’s practices actually violated wage-and-hour law.