Braun v Wal Mart Pennsylvania Supreme Court Upholds Worker Rights A
Braun v. Wal-Mart, Pennsylvania Supreme Court Upholds Worker Rights, A... Legal Advocacy
Braun v. Wal-Mart, consolidated with Hummel v. Wal-Mart, concern the use of aggregate proof in wage and hour class actions on behalf of 187,000 hourly workers who allege they were deprived of meal and rest breaks. The plaintiffs won a $187 million verdict in the trial court, which was appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. That court was asked to consider whether due process requires individualized proof of liability and damages with regard to each class member.
AARP’s brief, filed by attorneys with AARP Foundation Litigation in conjunction with attorneys from other organizations advocating for the rights of workers and minorities, explained that the U.S. Supreme Court’s reference to “trial by formula” in Dukes does not preclude the use of aggregate evidence in the enforcement of important rights. Instead, courts around the country make use of a variety of techniques to manage class-wide evidence without resorting to mini-trials of each class member’s claim and do so without violating due process rights of defendants.
The court agreed, finding that Wal-Mart’s own corporate policies and records documented the proof necessary to support the jury verdict. “There was a single, central, common issue of liability here: whether Wal-mart failed to compensate its employees in accordance with its own written policies…Damages were assessed based on a computation of the average rate of an employee’s pay (about eight dollars per hour) multiplied by the number of hours for which pay should have been received but was not. In our view, this was not a case of ‘trial by formula’ or of a class action ‘run amok,’” wrote the court.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Upholds Worker Rights
Read AARP's Braun v. Wal-Mart (PDF) AARP’s friend-of-court briefs asked the highest court in Pennsylvania to reject efforts to narrow the evidentiary proof and claims offered by class action members and to preserve the class action device as a critical mechanism to enable the vindication of important legal rights. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed.Background
In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court handed workers a stunning defeat when in Duke v. Wal-Mart it denied a class action for 1.5 million current and former female employees of Wal-Mart. That ruling’s repercussions under various federal and state anti-discrimination laws, as well as other civil and consumer rights laws, is still being felt. The Court’s criticism of “trial by formula” is at the forefront of state law cases in Pennsylvania and California.Braun v. Wal-Mart, consolidated with Hummel v. Wal-Mart, concern the use of aggregate proof in wage and hour class actions on behalf of 187,000 hourly workers who allege they were deprived of meal and rest breaks. The plaintiffs won a $187 million verdict in the trial court, which was appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. That court was asked to consider whether due process requires individualized proof of liability and damages with regard to each class member.
AARP’s brief, filed by attorneys with AARP Foundation Litigation in conjunction with attorneys from other organizations advocating for the rights of workers and minorities, explained that the U.S. Supreme Court’s reference to “trial by formula” in Dukes does not preclude the use of aggregate evidence in the enforcement of important rights. Instead, courts around the country make use of a variety of techniques to manage class-wide evidence without resorting to mini-trials of each class member’s claim and do so without violating due process rights of defendants.
The court agreed, finding that Wal-Mart’s own corporate policies and records documented the proof necessary to support the jury verdict. “There was a single, central, common issue of liability here: whether Wal-mart failed to compensate its employees in accordance with its own written policies…Damages were assessed based on a computation of the average rate of an employee’s pay (about eight dollars per hour) multiplied by the number of hours for which pay should have been received but was not. In our view, this was not a case of ‘trial by formula’ or of a class action ‘run amok,’” wrote the court.