The following excerpt is from Campbell v. City of L. A., 903 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2018):
The district court emphasized also that the Officers worked different hours and claimed overtime of different amounts, including some amounts that might have been de minimis. But those distinctions go to the individualized calculation of damages or the individualized application of defenses. Such distinctions do not preclude collective treatment for the purpose of resolving the common issue that does exist, and that must be answered in the first instance. See, e.g. , Bouaphakeo v. Tyson Foods, Inc. , 765 F.3d 791, 797 (8th Cir. 2014), aff'd , U.S. , 136 S.Ct. 1036, 194 L.Ed.2d 124 (2016).
Nor are individualized damages calculations inherently inconsistent with a collective action. In the wage-and-hour context, if a common question regarding the employer's liability is answered in the plaintiffs' favor, individualized calculations of work hours may readily be addressed with any of the practices developed to deal with Rule 23 classes facing similar issues. See Jimenez v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 765 F.3d 1161, 1167 (9th Cir. 2014).
[903 F.3d 1117]
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.