Albertson's countered that many managers performed mostly managerial tasks and therefore qualified as exempt. Further, Albertson's argued that the tasks grocery managers had to perform--whether exempt or nonexempt duties--varied greatly from week to week and from store to store, depending on store size, the number of departments in that store, neighborhood demographics, personal management style, etc. Therefore, the company contended, the legal and fact issues were different for each manager--meaning there was no "commonality"--so the case could not proceed as a class action.

A California appeals court sided with Albertson's and upheld a trial court order denying class certification. The appeals court explained that because of the significant variation in duties among grocery managers, hundreds of individual inquiries would be required to determine each manager's exempt status. So it was reasonable to conclude that the legal and factual issues were different for each of the 900 class members, and that a class action wasn't an efficient means to resolve the case.

The court also pointed out that the fact that managers shared a job title and job description did not establish commonality, as courts must engage in an actual fact inquiry, rather than just look at a job description, when determining exempt status. Furthermore, the existence of Albertson's single policy decision to classify all grocery managers as exempt didn't indicate commonality, as the policy may be accurate for some individuals but not for others.