Second Circuit Puts Teeth into Class-Action "Rigorous Analysis" Requirement

We’ve known since the Supreme Court’s 1982 decision in General Telephone Company of Southwest v. Falcon that in determining whether the prerequisites for class certification have been satisfied, a court must engage in a “rigorous analysis.”  But what does that mean?  According to the Second Circuit, at a minimum it means that a court must resolve material disputed facts relevant to each Rule 23 requirement before certifying a class, even where there is evidence of a common practice or policy.

Cuevas v. Citizens Financial Group [See here]involved an appeal of a district court’s order granting certification of a class of Assistant Branch Managers (“ABMs”).  The plaintiffs alleged that the bank violated the New York Labor Law by classifying all ABMs as exempt from the state law’s overtime requirements.  The district court [See here] found that commonality was satisfied because of company-wide documents that described the duties of the ABM position and limited ABMs from deviating from company-wide policies. It noted that the record reflected some differences among the exact daily activities of ABMs but concluded that the bank failed to submit any evidence showing that the company-wide policy documents were not an accurate representation of the general ABM responsibilities.

To read this blog post click here