A Wage Class Action Falls Apart on Appeal

A federal appeals court just vacated class certification in a wage-and-hour case against Anheuser-Busch. Predominance and commonality did the work.

Class certification lives or dies on Rule 23. To certify, plaintiffs must show that common questions predominate over individual ones, and that the claims share genuine commonality. The court found the certification order came up short on both.

That is not a small technicality. In wage-and-hour litigation, certification is often the whole ballgame. Certify a class and the employer’s exposure balloons, with settlement pressure following almost automatically. Deny or vacate it, and plaintiffs are left pursuing individual claims that rarely justify the cost.

To me, this is a useful reminder for employers facing collective and class wage claims: the certification stage is where the real fight is. If the alleged violations turn on individualized facts, different jobs, different practices, different managers, predominance becomes a serious obstacle for the plaintiffs.

Don’t treat certification as a formality. It is often the most important motion in the case. When exposure hinges on one ruling, where should employers focus? On Rule 23.