Oplchenski v. Parfums Givenchy, Inc.
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98503, 46 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1315, 254 F.R.D. 489 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) is improper in worker misclassification cases where individual questions predominate over common ones, particularly when liability depends on the specific, varying terms of multiple employee benefit plans, differing eligibility requirements for each worker, and fact-intensive inquiries into each class member's work experience.
Facts:
- Luba Oplchenski performed services for Parfums Givenchy, Inc. (PGI) as a fragrance specialist, or 'rotator,' in Chicago from 1999 to 2002.
- PGI set Oplchenski's hourly pay rate, and she submitted time sheets to PGI for payment.
- PGI did not offer Oplchenski employee benefits, did not withhold taxes from her pay, and provided her with an IRS Form 1099 each year.
- The timesheets Oplchenski submitted included a statement that she was an 'independent contractor' and not eligible for company or unemployment benefits.
- Aida Norey also worked as a fragrance specialist for PGI from 2001 to 2003 under similar terms, with PGI setting her hourly wage.
- Norey also submitted signed invoices containing the same language identifying her as an independent contractor.
- Neither Oplchenski nor Norey were offered participation in PGI's employee benefit plans, such as health insurance or retirement plans.
Procedural Posture:
- Luba Oplchenski and Aida Norey filed a Fifth Amended Complaint against Parfums Givenchy, Inc., and its affiliates in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
- The complaint alleged that the defendants improperly classified them and other 'rotators' as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits in violation of ERISA and state laws.
- Plaintiffs filed an Amended Motion for Class Certification, asking the court to allow the lawsuit to proceed on behalf of a nationwide class of similarly situated workers.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do common questions of law or fact predominate over individual questions for the purpose of class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) in a worker misclassification case where eligibility for various benefits depends on multiple, varying plan terms and individual work histories?
Opinions:
Majority - Darrah, J.
No. Common questions of law or fact do not predominate over the numerous individual questions required to resolve the claims of the proposed class members. Although the plaintiffs meet the threshold requirements of Rule 23(a)—numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy—certification under Rule 23(b)(3) is inappropriate because determining liability requires an overwhelming number of individualized inquiries. The court would need to analyze multiple benefit plans with different terms and amendments, determine each individual worker's eligibility based on specific criteria (e.g., hours worked), and assess whether each worker would have even elected to participate in certain plans. Citing Trombetta v. Cragin Federal Bank, the court noted that employers are free to define 'employee' in their benefit plans differently than the ERISA statute, making the specific language of each plan, rather than a single common-law test, the central issue. Furthermore, even applying the common-law Darden test for employee status would require a fact-intensive, non-uniform examination of each individual rotator's work experience. Because these individual issues overwhelm any common questions, a class action is not the superior method for adjudication.
Analysis:
This decision illustrates a significant obstacle for plaintiffs seeking class certification in worker misclassification cases, especially those involving complex benefit plans under ERISA. It establishes that a company's uniform policy of classifying workers as independent contractors is not, by itself, sufficient to satisfy the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3). The court's reasoning emphasizes that if determining actual injury and damages requires examining individual circumstances and the specific terms of multiple, ever-changing benefit plans, then individual issues will likely outweigh the common issue of misclassification. This precedent makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to proceed as a class, forcing more cases to be litigated individually, which can be prohibitively expensive and inefficient for workers with relatively small individual claims.
