Rule 23(c)(4) states that, “[w]hen appropriate, an action may be brought or maintained as a class action with respect to particular issues.” But do classes under Rule 23(c)(4), otherwise known as “issue classes,” also need to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)? In Harris v. Medical Transportation Management, Inc., 2023 WL 4567258 (D.C. Cir. July 18, 2023), the D.C. Circuit confirmed that the answer is “yes.”
Harris was brought by a group of drivers who alleged that they and hundreds of other drivers who worked for Medical Transportation Management (“MTM”) and its subcontractors were not paid their legally mandated wages under federal and DC law. They brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and DC’s wage-and-hour laws, and also for common-law breach of contract. Importantly, as required under those laws, the plaintiffs alleged that MTM was their employer under federal law, and a general contractor under DC law. See id., at *2. If MTM was indeed the employer, it could be liable under both FLSA and DC law, and if it is a general contractor, that status would separately subject it to strict liability under DC law for legal violations of its subcontractors. But if not, there would be no liability. Id.
Following class certification briefing, the district court granted plaintiffs’ motion to certify an issue class under that Rule 23(c)(4), encompassing the two questions of (1) whether MTM is a joint employer of the putative class and (2) whether MTM is a...
Park Filed Complaint Against President Lee Ahead of 2021 Election Jang Youngha Sentenced to One Year in Prison, Two Years Probation Confirmed The police have launched an investigation into Park Chu...