## Facts

- Former California retail sales associates and cashiers sued Polo Ralph Lauren entities for alleged California wage-and-hour violations.
- Plaintiffs sought to represent roughly 5,300 employees across multiple California retail and outlet stores.
- Plaintiffs alleged Polo used a common employee handbook and centralized policies, including:
  - discouraging or preventing legally required paid rest breaks,
  - requiring employees to clock out and then wait about 10–15 minutes (or more) for mandatory exit/bag checks without pay, and
  - classifying sales associates/cashiers as exempt commissioned employees and denying overtime even when employees allegedly did not meet the statutory commission criteria.
- Plaintiffs moved to certify a main class and subclasses tied to the rest-break, bag-check, and overtime/misclassification theories.
- Polo opposed certification, arguing Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) were not satisfied, especially commonality, typicality, and predominance.

## Issues

1. Whether the proposed class and subclasses satisfied Rule 23(a)’s numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements.
2. Whether, for each claim type, common questions predominated and a class action was superior under Rule 23(b)(3), particularly for (a) rest-break claims, (b) off-the-clock bag-check claims, and (c) overtime/misclassification claims.

## Decision

- The court granted class certification in part and denied it in part.
- Rule 23(a) was satisfied for the proposed class (numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy).
- Certification was denied for rest-break claims because individualized inquiries predominated over common questions.
- Certification was granted for the off-the-clock bag-check claim because a uniform clock-out/inspection practice was susceptible to common proof and predominance was met.
- Certification was granted for overtime/misclassification claims because the legality of a centralized, uniformly applied exemption/classification policy predominated, despite individualized compensation differences.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 23(a) is met where a large statewide workforce makes joinder impracticable and the named plaintiffs’ claims arise from the same alleged practices and legal theories as the class.
- Under Rule 23(b)(3), predominance fails when liability depends on individualized, employee-by-employee and shift-by-shift determinations (such as whether and why rest breaks were missed).
- Predominance is more likely satisfied where the challenged conduct is a discrete, companywide practice (such as mandatory post-clock-out bag checks) presenting common liability questions.
- A uniform exemption/classification decision can be litigated on a class basis when the central question is the legality of the employer’s policy, even if some individualized calculations are needed for damages or application.
- Individualized damages calculations generally do not defeat predominance when common liability issues can be resolved with classwide proof.
- Superiority favors class treatment where individual claims are modest and a single proceeding is more efficient and consistent than thousands of separate suits.

## Conclusion

The court certified classes for claims centered on allegedly uniform company practices—mandatory unpaid bag-check time and a centralized commissioned-employee exemption policy—but denied certification for rest-break claims because establishing liability would require predominantly individualized proof.


Otsuka v. Polo Ralph Lauren Corp., 251 F.R.D. 439 (N.D. Cal. 2008)