Ouellette v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and Florida's minimum wage law: are class actions for minimum wage on Florida's horizon?

• Author: Longoria, Marguerite M.

In 2004, Florida's voters and the First Circuit Court of Appeal took steps which may work together to open Florida's courthouses to class claims for unpaid wages under state and contract law. In November 2004, the First Circuit Court of Appeal decided Ouellette v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 888 So.2d 90, 91 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), rejecting Wal-Mart's argument that the individualized nature of the plaintiffs' damage claims barred class certification. This came on the heels of the initiative petition amending Florida's Constitution to require employers to pay employees a minimum wage of $6.15 for all hours worked and authorizing class actions for failure to pay this minimum wage.

Properly interpreted, this constitutional amendment should require employers to pay their employees the state minimum wage during every hour they work. Taken together, Ouellette and the new minimum wage amendment should pave the way for class actions seeking unpaid minimum wages in Florida.

Ouellette v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

In Ouellette, appellants alleged that Wal-Mart required them to work "off the clock" without compensation, deleted compensable work hours from their paychecks, and of failed to provide them with promised rest and meal breaks. Appellant's proposed class consisted of all individuals formerly or currently employed by Wal-Mart in Florida on or after July 13, 1997. (1) As a class, they pled claims in quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and failure to pay wages in violation of F.S. [section] 448.08 (2000). (2) On review, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed based upon its finding that the class was overbroad. (3) However, the appellate court rejected appellee's argument that the individualized nature of the employees' damage claims barred class certification. (4) In support, it cited the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal's opinion in Klay v. Humana, Inc., 382 F.3d 1241, 1259, 1273 (11th Cir. 2004), which described the various management tools available to trial courts to address individualized damages issues in a class action. The tools include: "(1) bifurcating liability and damage trials with the same or different juries; (2) appointing a magistrate judge or special master to preside over individual damages proceedings; (3) decertifying the class after the liability trial and providing notice to class members concerning how they may proceed to prove damages; (4) creating subclasses; or (5) altering or amending the class." (5) Having, thus, allowed for the possibility of a class action presenting individualized damages issues, the First District Court remanded the case to the circuit court without prejudice to appellants to redefine their class on remand.

The Facts in Ouellette

The plaintiffs in Ouellette filed their class action petition against Wal-Mart in July 2001. (6) They alleged that the wage violations stemmed from an inherent internal conflict between Wal-Mart's "preferred scheduling system," which set payroll budgets based upon a wage percent, and Wal-Mart's incentive program under which managers were eligible for bonuses upon demonstrating store profit. (7) Plaintiffs sought to certify a class under Florida's Rule 1.220(a)(3), by alleging that the question of whether Wal-Mart made express or implied contracts with its hourly employees and whether it engaged in a pattern of conduct of breaching those contracts by requiring its employees to work off the clock without compensation are questions about Wal-Mart's liability that are common to the entire class. (8) They sought to define the class of plaintiffs as "[a]ll current and former hourly employees of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., (including its operating divisions Sam's Club and Wal-Mart Supercenters) in the State of Florida during the period July 13, 1997 to the present." (9)...