Trial Plan Invalidates Wage-And-Hour Class Action, California Supreme Court Finds

In a suit that has gone on for more than a decade, California’s highest court ruled that the trial methodology in the Duran v. U.S. Bank National Association class action was fundamentally flawed, and violated U.S. Bank’s due process rights. The class action was filed in 2001 on behalf of 260 Business Banking Officers who claimed they were misclassified as exempt outside salespersons and were owed overtime pay. But the trial plan limited testimony to 21 “representative” class action members, precluding U.S. Bank from presenting evidence or testimony bearing on liability or damages to any member outside the sample. “The court’s decision to extrapolate classwide liability from a small sample, and its refusal to permit any inquiries or evidence about the work habits of BBOs outside the sample group, deprived USB of the opportunity to litigate its exemption defense,” the state Supreme Court wrote in its ruling. “The injustice of this result is manifest.”

The trial court had ruled in favor of the class, and used the reported overtime hours for the 21-person sample to extrapolate an estimate of $15 million in damages, an average recovery of $57,000 for each class action member. The court of appeal reversed, and the California Supreme Court agreed to take the case on review.