In another logic-defying ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held recently that a group of plaintiffs seeking class action status to sue their employer under California law for wage and hour violations was entitled to class certification based on evidence that would not be admissible in a trial.

In reversing a trial court ruling in the case of Sali v. Corona Regional Medical Center, No. 15-56460 (9th Cir. May 3, 2018), the appeals court stated that “Although we have not squarely addressed the nature of the ‘evidentiary proof’ a plaintiff must submit in support of class certification, we now hold that such proof need not be admissible evidence.” This is the same federal appeals court that ruled earlier this year that an employer was required to comply with a “void underground” regulation.

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Sali is at odds with most other federal appeals courts, and conflicts with language used by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 2013 decision strongly suggesting that evidence that would not be admissible at trial will not suffice for purposes of supporting class certification.

A copy of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Sali is available here.

Members of the Center for Workplace Compliance (CWC) can read more here.