In November 2023, the court preliminarily certified the FLSA collective action, enabling notices to be sent to potential participants who must opt-in to join under federal law.
The plaintiffs argue that Apple’s policy resulted in widespread underpayment for overtime work, violating wage laws and creating liability for damages.
Apple Pushes Back
Apple, represented by Theane Evangelis of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, has opposed the motion for class certification and filed a motion to decertify the FLSA collective action.
Evangelis argued that employees’ circumstances varied too widely to support class certification, pointing to differences in RSU awards, exempt and non-exempt roles, and arbitration agreements.
“Instead, the court will need to conduct hundreds, if not thousands, of mini-trials on dispositive questions,” Evangelis said. She also criticized the plaintiffs’ expert report as lacking coherence.
“Their expert’s model is the model of arbitrariness,” Evangelis added, challenging the feasibility of prorating RSUs for employees who alternated between exempt and non-exempt roles.
Plaintiffs Counter Apple’s Criticism
Michele Fisher of Nichols Kaster PLLP, representing the plaintiffs, defended the expert report and described Apple’s arguments as “nitpicking.” Fisher emphasized that the affected group is cohesive and manageable, with only a small subset—about 1%—involved in roles requiring prorating.
