Class Action Certified for Wage Claim Under State Law

The court found persuasive in granting class certification that the number of class members was large and the amount of each individual claim was insubstantial, and therefore 'it would be impractical and inefficient for individual class members to prosecute separate actions.' The court found the class representatives' claims to be typical of the claims of other class members and to predominate over individual questions.

The court rejected the defendants' claim that different wage rates and difficulties related to the calculation of damages served to defeat class certification. The court noted here that the typicality requirement relates to the nature of the claims underlying the transaction and not to the amount or measure of damages. The court found the claims here to be identical and the difficulty in calculating damages insufficient to bar class action certification. The court also rejected defendants' claim that the class representatives were inadequate because, by proceeding via the class action route, they waived potential punitive remedies under Labor Law '198. The court noted that those individuals seeking punitive remedies could always opt out of the class.

A class action brought on behalf of 15,000 present and former members of Bloomingdale's commissioned sales force was certified under New York Labor Law '193 based on a claim that Bloomingdale's inappropriately made deductions from the commissions credited to the sales force for merchandise returned by customers. Jacobs v. Bloomingdale's, Inc. Index No. 17283/96 (Sup. Ct. Queens Co. 5/03) (Taylor, J.S.C.)

The class representatives were sales staff members at various Bloomingdale's, May Department Stores, Macy's, and Abraham & Strauss locations. Plaintiffs acknowledged that the stores were entitled to deduct for unreturned items that they sold. The plaintiffs objected, however, to the practice of making deductions from credited commissions for 'unidentified returns,' that is, returned merchandise for which the store could not identify the salesperson involved in the transaction. The defendant stores deducted a pro rata share of the unidentified returns from all the commissions which were paid to all sales personnel in the department from which the product was sold.

The complaint in the case sought contract damages for unpaid wages, and raised a claim under Labor Law '193 for unlawful deductions from wages. Plaintiffs moved for an order pursuant to CPLR 901 and 902 for class action certification. The court granted certification for a class 'comprised of all past or present commission sales employees of the defendants in New York State whose commission wages had been reduced and/or affected because of unidentified returns.'

The court found persuasive in granting class certification that the number of class members was large and the amount of each individual claim was insubstantial, and therefore 'it would be impractical and inefficient for individual class members to prosecute separate actions.' The court found the class representatives' claims to be typical of the claims of other class members and to predominate over individual questions.

The court rejected the defendants' claim that different wage rates and difficulties related to the calculation of damages served to defeat class certification. The court noted here that the typicality requirement relates to the nature of the claims underlying the transaction and not to the amount or measure of damages. The court found the claims here to be identical and the difficulty in calculating damages insufficient to bar class action certification. The court also rejected defendants' claim that the class representatives were inadequate because, by proceeding via the class action route, they waived potential punitive remedies under Labor Law '198. The court noted that those individuals seeking punitive remedies could always opt out of the class.