The recent California Court of Appeal decision in Allison v. Dignity Health (June 24, 2025), involving claims over meal and rest breaks, is a reminder that class certification in wage and hour cases is not the end of the story. Even after a class is certified, it can still be decertified if evidence shows that individual issues outweigh common ones. Here are five lessons California employers should take from this important case.

1. Class Certification Is Not Set in Stone

In Allison, two registered nurses sued Dignity Health alleging missed meal and rest breaks, unpaid work time, and related claims. The trial court initially certified the class based largely on time records and a survey showing a high rate of meal-period noncompliance.

But after 19 months of discovery, the employer successfully moved to decertify the class. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decertification, showing that certification can be revisited—and reversed—if new evidence reveals that common proof won’t work for the whole group.

2. Post-Certification Discovery Can Change the Case

What led to decertification? Discovery revealed significant variations in employee experiences:

  • Some nurses voluntarily skipped or shortened breaks.
  • Timesheet entries were inconsistent and sometimes inaccurate.
  • Many employees testified that they were able to take compliant breaks.

These differences meant that the court would have to assess individual reasons for missed breaks—making a class action unmanageable. Employers should understand that thorough discovery can uncover facts that undermine the “commonality” element required for class claims.

3. Time Records Alone Are Not Enough

The plaintiffs relied heavily on time records and an expert survey to prove widespread violations. The Court of Appeal emphasized that these data sources were not conclusive:

  • Time entries can reflect voluntary choices rather than employer-caused violations.
  • Statistical surveys can be challenged for accuracy, methodology, and reliability.

The Court explained: “In Donohue, the Supreme Court held that a rebuttable presumption of liability arises when an employer’s time records show employees suffered noncompliant meal periods…. [But] it does not result in ‘automatic liability’ for employers.”

4. Employee Declarations Can Make or Break the Case

The court emphasized that testimony from employees themselves could rebut the presumption of liability. As the opinion explained:

“None of plaintiffs’ authorities bar the use of anecdotal testimony to rebut the presumption of liability….Pointing to class members’ conflicting deposition testimony, Dignity argued ‘class member testimony show[ed] wide variation of relevant experiences’ regarding meal period compliance and premium requests. For example, one RN testified that she ‘sometimes chose not to request premiums’; another testified he may have clocked in early from lunch on occasion because he ‘lost track of time’; and another RN stated she did not take a meal period on days when she wanted to go home sooner. In sum, Dignity argued ‘[n]early all of [the deponents] agreed their records were not entirely reliable indicators of when breaks were missed, late, or short because they sometimes chose to skip, shorten, or delay a meal period, or because they simply made mistakes.’”

5. The Decision Affirms Employer’s Defenses to Class Certification and Offers Guidance for PAGA Cases

The Allison decision confirms that employers can—and should—seek decertification when discovery shows that individual issues predominate. This is particularly relevant in:

  • Industries with variable work patterns (healthcare, hospitality, retail, etc.),
  • Cases relying heavily on time records without context,
  • Situations where employee choice plays a role in break practices.

While Allison itself was not a PAGA case, its reasoning also provides a roadmap for employers facing PAGA claims, since courts are increasingly scrutinizing manageability when individualized issues predominate.  By proactively documenting break compliance, training supervisors, and preserving favorable employee testimony, employers can create the evidence needed to challenge certification.

Final Thoughts

Allison v. Dignity Health is a timely reminder that wage and hour class actions cannot simply be determined based on a review of time records.  Courts will look closely at whether the plaintiff’s theory can truly be proven with common evidence—or if individual differences make a class unmanageable.

For California employers, the takeaway is clear: invest in compliance now, ensure accurate employment policies, train supervisors on wage and hour compliance, and don’t hesitate to revisit class certification if the facts support it. Allison also underscores the value of conducting robust discovery and developing evidence that highlights employee choice and variation — tools that can be decisive in defeating class certification.