Lexplug logoLexplug

Cope v. Let's Eat Out, Inc.

District Court, W.D. Missouri
319 F.R.D. 544 (2017)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A class can be certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 even if some class members did not suffer an actual injury, so long as all members were subject to a common, allegedly unlawful policy that exposed them to potential harm.


Facts:

  • Bruno Management Company, Inc. ('Defendant Bruno') operated four Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants in Missouri.
  • Defendant Bruno implemented a 'Guest Payment Policy' that required servers and bartenders to reimburse the restaurant for losses when customers left without paying.
  • This policy was also allegedly applied to cover cash register shortages at the end of an employee's shift.
  • Olivia Cope was employed as a server and bartender at a Buffalo Wild Wings in Springfield, Missouri, from approximately March 2013 to January 2016.
  • Cope and other tipped employees were paid a sub-minimum, tip-credit wage rate.
  • Cope was required on at least one occasion to use her tips to cover the unpaid bill of a customer who walked out.
  • Cope was also required to use her tips to reimburse the restaurant when her cash register was short.
  • Defendant Bruno did not maintain records of when or how much employees paid as reimbursement under the policy.

Procedural Posture:

  • Olivia Cope filed a lawsuit against Bruno Management Company, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, alleging violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Missouri state wage laws.
  • The court previously granted Cope's motion for conditional certification of a nationwide collective action for the FLSA claims pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
  • Cope then filed the instant Motion for Class Certification for her two Missouri state law claims under the Missouri Minimum Wage Law and Missouri common law, seeking certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a proposed class of employees, all subject to a common, allegedly unlawful wage policy, satisfy the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, even if not every employee was actually required to make a payment under that policy?


Opinions:

Majority - Judge Stephen R. Bough

Yes. A proposed class of employees subject to a common, allegedly unlawful wage policy satisfies the requirements for class certification under Rule 23 because the commonality of the policy itself predominates over individual questions of harm. The court found that all requirements for class certification were met. First, the class is ascertainable through objective criteria (employment records) and the named plaintiff has standing because the policy exposed all class members to potential harm, even if some members experienced 'fortuitous non-injury' by not having to make a payment. Second, the four prerequisites of Rule 23(a) are satisfied: the class of at least 99-144 members is too numerous for joinder (numerosity); the legality of the Guest Payment Policy is a question common to all (commonality); Cope's claim of being forced to pay under the policy is typical of the class (typicality); and Cope and her counsel will adequately represent the class (adequacy). Finally, the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) are met because common questions about the legality of the company-wide policy predominate over individual inquiries into damages, and a class action is the superior method for adjudicating hundreds of similar, small-value claims efficiently and uniformly.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the principle that class certification focuses on the defendant's common course of conduct rather than on the individual outcomes for each class member. By holding that 'fortuitous non-injury' does not defeat standing or commonality at the certification stage, the court makes it easier for plaintiffs to certify classes based on a uniform, allegedly illegal policy. The ruling also underscores that an employer's failure to keep adequate records cannot be used to defeat class certification, effectively shifting the burden created by poor record-keeping away from the employees. This approach streamlines litigation by allowing the central question of the policy's legality to be resolved on a class-wide basis, leaving individualized damages calculations for a later stage.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Cope v. Let's Eat Out, Inc. (2017)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"