Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Joanne Allison v. Dignity Health
Date: 06-25-2025
Case Number: A169225
Judge: Curtis E.A. Karnow
Court: Superior Court, San Francisco County, California
Plaintiff's Attorney: David Markham, Lisa Brevard, Isam Khoury, Michael Singer, Maggie Realin and Walter Haines
Defendant's Attorney: Richard Simmons, Jason Kearnaghan, Hillary Habib, Bryanne Lewis
Joanne Allison, a former registered nurse, filed a class action lawsuit against her former employer, Dignity Health, alleging unpaid work, meal period, and rest break violations. She sought class certification for registered nurses at three Dignity hospitals since June 1, 2014. Allison's expert claimed that time records showed over 70% of shifts had noncompliant meal periods. She also argued that work-issued communication devices interrupted rest breaks, violating labor laws.
The trial court initially granted partial class certification, finding common questions suitable for class treatment, including the legality of Dignity's premium request requirement and the impact of communication devices on breaks. However, Dignity later moved to decertify the class, citing post-certification discovery that revealed significant variations in nurses' experiences and practices, undermining the manageability of class-wide adjudication.
Affirmed
About This Case
What was the outcome of Joanne Allison v. Dignity Health?
The outcome was: Decertification granted. Affirmed
Which court heard Joanne Allison v. Dignity Health?
This case was heard in Superior Court, San Francisco County, California, CA. The presiding judge was Curtis E.A. Karnow.
Who were the attorneys in Joanne Allison v. Dignity Health?
Plaintiff's attorney: David Markham, Lisa Brevard, Isam Khoury, Michael Singer, Maggie Realin and Walter Haines. Defendant's attorney: Richard Simmons, Jason Kearnaghan, Hillary Habib, Bryanne Lewis.
When was Joanne Allison v. Dignity Health decided?
This case was decided on June 25, 2025.