Avery v. TEKsystems, Inc.

Background

Bo Avery, Phoebe Rodgers, Kristy Camilleri, and Jill Unverferth worked as Recruiters for TEKsystems, Inc. (“TEK”), an information-technology staffing company. They alleged that TEK improperly classified Recruiters as exempt from California overtime, wage, and hour laws, resulting in unpaid overtime and related meal- and rest-break violations.

The proposed class covered all current and former Recruiters employed by TEK in California from January 28, 2018, through the final date of judgment. The proposed subclass covered class members who worked as Recruiters on or after January 28, 2019, were no longer employed by TEK, and had not been employed by TEK for more than 72 hours.

TEK classified all Recruiter job titles other than Recruiter Trainees as exempt. Recruiters generally screened candidates, matched them to job requirements, and presented candidates to Account Managers. The Account Managers generally decided whether to present candidates to TEK’s clients. Recruiters performed similar basic duties, worked under similar supervision, were measured by standardized performance metrics, and were paid under a uniform pay scale.

Class-Certification Requirements

The plaintiffs sought certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The court explained that they had to establish numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy under Rule 23(a), as well as predominance and superiority under Rule 23(b)(3).

The court found numerosity satisfied because, as of June 14, 2023, there were approximately 476 proposed class members and 252 proposed subclass members. TEK did not contest this requirement.

The court found commonality because the central issue was whether TEK properly treated all Recruiters as exempt from California wage-and-hour protections. The court concluded that common evidence could address whether Recruiters’ work was directly related to management policies or general business operations and whether Recruiters exercised discretion and independent judgment.

The court found typicality because the named plaintiffs and proposed class members were all Recruiters whom TEK classified as exempt and who alleged the same types of wage-and-hour injuries. The court also found adequacy because there was no evidence of conflicts between the named plaintiffs and the class, plaintiffs’ counsel had class-action experience and sufficient resources, and the plaintiffs had participated actively in discovery.

Predominance

Predominance requires common questions to outweigh questions requiring individualized proof. The court examined each part of TEK’s asserted administrative exemption under California law.

First, the court found that whether Recruiters’ work was directly related to management policies or general business operations could be decided using common legal and factual evidence. TEK’s argument that Recruiters served its customers’ personnel-management needs treated all Recruiters alike and therefore supported class-wide analysis.

Second, the court found that whether Recruiters exercised discretion and independent judgment was also suitable for common proof. TEK presented declarations describing variations in how Recruiters performed their work, but the court found that the evidence generally showed a consistent primary duty: screening candidates and presenting selected candidates to Account Managers. The court also noted that Account Managers or clients retained important decision-making authority.

Third, the court found that whether Recruiters worked under only general supervision could be addressed through common evidence. Recruiters described daily or frequent supervision, standardized performance metrics, recurring meetings, assigned requirements, and close monitoring. Although supervisory titles and structures changed during the class period, TEK did not show that the degree of supervision materially varied among Recruiters.

Fourth, the court found that whether Recruiters primarily performed exempt administrative duties could likely be proven on a class-wide basis. Recruiters recorded activities in TEK’s internal database, and TEK used uniform performance metrics. The court relied on evidence indicating that most Recruiter activity involved contacting candidates, conducting intake calls, and making calls, while interactions with clients were generally infrequent.

Superiority and Manageability

The court found that a class action was superior to individual lawsuits. The record did not show that class members wanted to pursue separate actions or that they had a strong incentive to do so. The court also found no other pending litigation weighing against class treatment and concluded that the Northern District of California was an appropriate forum for the California class.

TEK argued that individualized questions about assignments, schedules, hours, and damages would make the case unmanageable. The court rejected that argument, explaining that differences in damages alone do not defeat class certification and that plaintiffs intended to use class members’ electronic records to establish work hours rather than relying on individual testimony.

Ruling

Judge Jacquelyn Corley held that plaintiffs had proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) were satisfied. The court certified the proposed class and subclass.

The court appointed Werman Salas P.C., Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., and Olivier & Schreiber LLP as class counsel. The parties were directed to meet and confer about proposed class notice, and the court set a further case-management conference for March 14, 2024. The order disposed of Docket No. 63.

The order addressed whether the claims could proceed as a class action; it did not determine whether TEK ultimately violated California wage-and-hour law or whether the plaintiffs were entitled to damages.