Labor & Employment Law

Having Employees Sign Forms Generally Objecting to Release of Contact Information Has No Effect on Plaintiff's Discovery Rights -- Crab Addison v. Superior Court

In the 2007 decision of Pioneer Electronics v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court held that class action plaintiffs have the right to discover the identities and contact information of class members. 

Since then there has been a steady drumbeat of published cases that have continued to reinforce that right -- usually with the proviso that class members should first be given notice of the request and an opportunity to affirmatively object to the disclosure.   For example, in Lee v. Dynamex, 166 Cal.App.4th 1325 (2008),  the Second District held that it was error to deny class certification without first allowing discovery of class contact information. 

In response to this trend, a number of law firms have advised their clients to have their employees presumptively sign forms stating that they object to the disclosure of their identities to third parties.   In the December 30 decision in Crab Addison v. Superior Court, the Second District held that this practice doesn't change the discovery analysis at all.

[The employer] argues that these forms gave their employees a heightened expectation of privacy in their contact information, requiring that the contact information be given greater protection and making an “opt in” notice procedure proper. We are unconvinced by this argument

As the Court explained, public policy generally disfavors any type of advance waiver that may make it more difficult for an employee to participate in a class action.  Moreover, signing a form that generically objects to disclosing information to third parties is no substitute for an informed objection concerning the particular lawsuit at issue. 

The release forms stated that [the employer] “may be asked to provide such information in the context of legal proceedings, including class action lawsuits.”We do not believe that a lay employee reading this language would realize that the reference to “class action lawsuits” meant lawsuits intended to vindicate their rights, rather than lawsuits by third parties against [the employer] that would be of no benefit to the employees.

With this latest ruling, it now appears pretty futile for employers to continue fighting the tide of authority that requires disclosure of employee contact information.  

Full post as published by California Labor & Employment Defense Blog on January 01, 2009 (boomark / email).