The California Supreme Court decision of Duran v. U.S. Bank may make it easier for California employers to win class wage and hour suits, according to Geoffrey Westbrook and Laura Maechtlen of Seyfarth Shaw.
The case considered the prevalent litigation tactic of employing statistical evidence to reduce trial time and avoid proof issues of class-action plaintiffs, explain the authors. But the court ruled against this strategy and also imposed new restrictions, they say. Here are some ways employers may benefit from the decision:
- Lawyers are not mathletes: “Duran is an excellent illustration of the modern misuse and abuse of statistical evidence in class litigation,” say Westbrook and Maechtlen. At trial, the plaintiffs used a random sample of 20 class members, plus their two name plaintiffs, to represent the class of 260. The court rejected this model and ruled it was flawed as the sample was too small to be properly reflective of the class, as well as biased in the plaintiffs’ favor, they say.
- Due process is a constitutional right—even for employers: The trial plan of Duran didn’t allow U.S. Bank to make a key defense argument because it involved evidence pertaining to employees outside of the statistical group of 22. The court ruled that this was inappropriate as it impeded due process and thus the case exemplifies the fact that “trial management practices cannot serve as a basis to deny a party’s substantive, and in this case constitutional, rights,” they say.
- Case management: “While the Supreme Court did not wholly preclude the use of sampling and surveys in class litigation, Duran imposes new restrictions to this practice,” say Westbrook and Maechtlen. These include evaluating and scrutinizing statistical methods early on in the litigation and developing a plan for their use.
