Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Security Guards Unable To Secure Certification Without Commonality

September 24, 2014 by Jacob R. Hathorn

A California federal district court recently denied a motion for class certification because the evidence presented in connection with the motion refuted plaintiffs’ attempted showing of commonality through uniform exposure to unlawful corporate policies.

Paragon provides security services to hundreds of federal government sites throughout California under contracts with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Protective Services.  The company was sued by current and former Paragon security officers, who sought to certify claims that Paragon deprived them of rest periods to which they were lawfully entitled.

Under California law, an employer may not require an employee to work during any meal or rest period.  To satisfy commonality in support of their motion for class certification, plaintiffs highlighted two separate mandatory corporate policies that they claimed effected the denial of off-duty rest periods for all Paragon security officers within the putative class.

The first Paragon policy highlighted by plaintiffs was a “Rest and Meal Agreement,” which stated that Paragon would count and pay compensation for all required rest periods as if they were hours worked.  For reasons not clearly articulated in the Court’s opinion, plaintiffs contended that the Agreement was a mandatory uniform policy depriving security officers of off-duty rest periods.

The Court saw things differently.  Noting that the language of the Agreement was consistent with California law, the Court credited evidence showing that Paragon employees were not required to sign the Agreement, and even if they did, could opt out of the Agreement at any time.

The second Paragon policy highlighted by plaintiffs was a uniformly applied firearm policy requiring all security guards to carry Paragon-issued, loaded weapons during their entire shift at all California locations.  Because California law prohibits security guards from carrying a firearm in public places other than where they are providing security guard services, plaintiffs contended that the Paragon firearm policy effectively prevents employees from taking a rest break that is not controlled by the employer.

Once again, the Court disagreed.  The evidence showed that the written policy requiring firearms for all security officers actually applied to some, but not all, California locations, and the Court concluded that plaintiffs could not satisfy commonality without evidence of a uniform firearms policy applicable to all locations.

Accordingly, the Court denied plaintiffs motion for class certification for failure to satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2), and also took the opportunity in its order to chastise plaintiffs for attempting to certify a Rule 23(b)(2) class improperly seeking compensatory damages, restitution, enhanced damages, and penalties that were not incidental to the injunctive relief also sought by plaintiffs.

Mireles v. Paragon Systems, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-00122 L (BGS) (S.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2014).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Third Circuit Affirms District Court’s Denial Of Certification Of Nationwide Class Of Plaintiffs Alleging Consumer Fraud And Unjust Enrichment

Next Article »

Texas High Court Holds State’s Unclaimed Property Act Does Not Preclude Cy Pres Distribution Of Unclaimed Class Action Settlement Proceeds
Avatar

About Jacob R. Hathorn

Get Weekly Updates!

2020 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

DOWNLOAD NOW
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • MDL Court Denies Class Certification of Proposed “NAS Babies” Class
  • What’s Good for Trial Is Good for Class Certification: Fifth Circuit Rules That Daubert Applies at Class Certification Stage
  • One Game, One Stadium: Eleventh Circuit Spikes Collateral Challenge to Tampa Bay Buccaneers Proposed Class Action Settlement

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Classified Logo
© 2014–2021 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.