Reported / Citable
Background
Amy Hamm and Joye Wilson formerly worked at River Place Behavioral Health, a Louisiana psychiatric hospital operated by Ochsner-Acadia and Acadia LaPlace Holdings. They alleged that the hospital nominally provided unpaid meal breaks but that its policies, combined with employees’ professional and ethical duties to patients, effectively required mental-health support staff to remain on call during those periods.
The plaintiffs brought Fair Labor Standards Act claims and Louisiana-law claims for unjust enrichment and conversion. The district court certified an FLSA collective action and a Rule 23(b)(3) class covering current and former River Place mental-health support staff. The Fifth Circuit granted the defendants permission under Rule 23(f) to appeal the class-certification ruling.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal insofar as it challenged certification of the FLSA collective. Rule 23(f) authorizes interlocutory review of Rule 23 class-certification orders, not FLSA collective-certification orders, and pendent appellate jurisdiction was unavailable because the two certification decisions were not inextricably intertwined. The FLSA claims invoke the predominant-benefit test, while the Louisiana unjust-enrichment and conversion claims involve different substantive elements and Rule 23 imposes a different certification framework.
The court affirmed certification of the Rule 23 class. The plaintiffs’ theory—that uniform policies and similar professional obligations kept the entire class effectively on call during unpaid meal periods—was susceptible to classwide proof, supporting predominance and commonality. Payroll and timekeeping records also supplied a manageable method of calculating damages under that theory, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding superiority, typicality, and adequacy satisfied.
The Fifth Circuit did not decide whether being effectively on call during meal breaks ultimately establishes unjust enrichment or conversion under Louisiana law. It held only that the theory presents common questions suitable for class treatment, leaving its merits for dispositive motions or trial, and remanded for further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- A Rule 23(f) appeal does not itself confer jurisdiction to review an FLSA collective-certification order.
- Common evidence about employer policies and employees’ shared professional duties can support predominance even when individual meal-break experiences differ.
- Certification did not establish liability; the plaintiffs still must prove that their on-call theory supports unjust-enrichment or conversion liability under Louisiana law.
Why It Matters
The decision draws a firm jurisdictional line between Rule 23 class certification and FLSA collective certification, even when both arise from the same workplace practices. Parties seeking interlocutory review cannot assume that permission to appeal a Rule 23 order also opens the door to review of a parallel FLSA ruling.
It also confirms that courts evaluating predominance should focus on whether the plaintiffs’ actual theory can be resolved through common proof, without prematurely deciding whether that theory will prevail on the merits.