McCaster v. Darden Restaurants, Inc.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying plaintiffs’ motion to certify proposed class action arising out of plaintiffs’ claim that defendant-former employer’s refusal to pay plaintiffs pro rata vacation pay upon their termination violated Ill. Wage Payment and Collection Act. Plaintiff’s proposed class definition, which consisted of “all persons separated from hourly employment…who were subject to [defendant’s] vacation policy and who did not receive all earned vacation pay” described improper “fail safe” class, since: (1) person who qualified as member of plaintiffs’ class depended on whether said person had valid claim; and (2) “fail safe” class is impermissible because class member either wins case or, by virtue of losing case, is defined out of said class, and thus would not be bound by Dist. Ct.’s judgment. Moreover, plaintiffs’ alternative definition, which merely struck reference to class member’s failure to receive vacation pay, did not satisfy class action requirements under Rule 23, since plaintiffs failed to identify any unlawful conduct on defendant’s part that was common to entire proposed class and had caused all class members to suffer same injury.