California Appellate Court Affirms Employer’s Decertification of Meal and Rest Period Class Action

Quick Hits

• The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, affirmed a trial court’s ruling decertifying meal and rest period claims.
• The appellate court held that an unreliable survey, combined with employee time records showing short/late/missed meal periods, was insufficient proof of classwide liability.
• The ruling confirms that class member testimony can rebut a presumption of meal period violations created by employee time records.
• Additionally, the ruling shows that courts can weigh credibility and credit employer declarations in determining whether individual issues predominate.

In Allison v. Dignity Health, a pair of registered nurses (RN) brought a class action on behalf of themselves and other RNs who worked at three Dignity Health hospitals, alleging claims for unpaid work, meal and rest period violations, and other derivative claims.

The RNs alleged they were required to carry work-issued communication devices during their breaks, leading to interruptions of their break periods and off-the-clock work. The trial court initially granted class certification for the meal period and rest break claims, but later decertified the class based on new evidence revealed in discovery following class certification. In decertifying the class, the trial court found individual issues predominated over common issues, making class treatment unmanageable. 

The First Appellate District ruled that the trial court had not abused its discretion in decertifying the class. Notably, the appellate court found that the employer had successfully rebutted a presumption of noncompliance with meal periods based on testimony from class members that they voluntarily delayed or shortened meal periods. The case was decided on June 2, 2025, and certified for publication on June 24, 2025.

Time Records Alone Do Not Prove Classwide Liability

The nurses relied on a presumption of violations stemming from employee time records showing short, late, or missed meal periods based on the 2021 Supreme Court of California decision in Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC. That case established that employees can create a rebuttable presumption of violation by pointing to time records showing noncompliant meal periods.

The appellate court held that Donohue does not eliminate the need to prove liability through common evidence, and the presence of time-record anomalies was not enough without a reliable, unifying explanation that could be resolved on a classwide basis. The appellate court in Allison found that time records must be considered in context. The court said employers may rebut the Donohue presumption with evidence such as class member testimony explaining they voluntarily delayed or shortened meals, manager declarations explaining business operations, and evidence of meal waivers or legitimate reasons for variations. Specifically, the appellate court said the employer had submitted RNs’ deposition testimony reflecting idiosyncratic reasons for noncompliant meal periods.

Flawed Survey Evidence Cannot Establish Commonality or Predominance

The appellate court found that without valid survey evidence, the RNs could not prove classwide liability or damages, and individualized inquiries predominated. The RNs had sought to use a survey to show common violations. However, the appellate court found that the trial court did not err when it disregarded the survey after finding it was “unreliable for class certification purposes and unworkable as part of the trial plan.”

The appellate court said that the trial court was within its discretion to assess the survey’s admissibility at trial and did not overreach in ruling it was unreliable because it did not reflect a random sample of class members. The appellate court said the voluntary responses “present[ed] the potential for nonresponse bias, confounding randomization.”

Class Member Testimony Can Rebut Presumption of Noncompliance

The appellate court further expressly held that testimony from class members stating they took breaks as they pleased, were not discouraged from doing so, or chose to work through breaks voluntarily can rebut the Donohue presumption. This ruling highlighted that individual class members themselves are valid sources of rebuttal evidence, making classwide treatment unworkable.

Courts May Credit Assess Parties’ Evidence at Certification Stage

Additionally, the appellate court rejected the notion that class certification is automatically required when both sides submit conflicting evidence. Instead, it held that trial courts may weigh competing declarations and decide which evidence to credit when determining whether common issues predominate. This holding undermines plaintiffs’ strategy to force certification by simply creating a “battle of the declarations.”

Key Takeaways

The Allison decision is a powerful precedent for opposing certification in California wage-and-hour litigation. The Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, held that an unreliable survey, coupled with employee time records showing short/late/missed meal periods, did not provide sufficient classwide evidence of liability. Additionally, the ruling confirms that class member testimony can rebut the Donohue presumption of meal period violations created by employee time records, and that courts may credit one party’s evidence over the other’s when deciding whether common issues predominate at the class certification stage.

Ogletree Deakins’ California Class Action and PAGA Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the California, Class Action, Healthcare, and Wage and Hour blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts