Caren Bufil filed a
meal period class action lawsuit in a
court against her employer, Dollar Financial Group, Inc., which operates 130
check cashing retail stores in
Her case was filed on behalf of a narrow group of employees for whom Dollar’s
records reflected that a meal period wasn’t taken either because the employee
was the only one working in the store or was supervising a trainee who couldn’t
be left alone.
Dollar argued that
Bufil’s case should be dismissed because just four months earlier a trial court
dismissed another meal period suit against Dollar filed on behalf of all of its
store employees who missed meal and rest breaks. That earlier case was found to
be unsuitable for class treatment because common questions of law and fact didn’t
predominate over individualized issues. Dollar contended that Bufil should be prevented
from re-litigating issues that were already resolved in a prior proceeding.
But a California
appeals court has ruled that the disposition of the first lawsuit didn’t
preclude Bufil’s case because the class she sought to represent and the issues
her case raised were not the same as in the first suit.1 Bufil’s lawsuit was
much narrower, only involving a distinct subclass of all hourly employees who
were denied meal breaks.What’s more, the first lawsuit’s commonality problems
weren’t present with this smaller group.
_
1 Bufil v. Dollar Financial Group, Inc.,
8