collective action, supported only by the declarations of the two plaintiffs. The declarations stated that all RFSs performed the same job duties of providing customer support services, including assistance with fraudulent transactions and obtaining new credit cards, they all were hourly employees, and that in order to perform their job duties, RFSs must complete an “extensive computer boot up process” to open various work programs taking up to 30 minutes per day. Id. at *3. In December 2022, the defendants changed their policy to require RFSs to boot up their systems at the start of (and not before) their scheduled shift. Id. at *4-5. The court found that the plaintiffs provided sufficient evidence to show that they were-similarly- situated to other RFSs, as they shared common job requirements and hourly wages. The court also credited the assertions in plaintiffs’ declarations that based on conversations with “numerous” other employees, plaintiffs expected that those employees would join the litigation, noting that “[i]f that interest never materializes, this action can be decertified.” Id. at *6. Ultimately, the court granted conditional certification for the FLSA collective action. Weinmann, et al. v. Construction Land Staffing, LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102226 (W.D. Penn. June 8, 2023), is another example of the minimal evidence needed to conditionally certify a collective action. The plaintiff, a Right of Way Agent, filed a collective action alleging that the defendant, a land management consulting company, failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. The plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, and the court granted the motion. In support of her motion, the plaintiff offered declarations from four opt-in plaintiffs, three employee placement forms that described the terms of their compensation, deposition testimony from various employees, and responses to interrogatories that the defendant provided in a similar action. Id. at *9. The defendant argued that since the parties already exchanged some discovery, it would be appropriate to hold the plaintiff to a higher evidentiary standard because the plaintiff had a more robust factual record at her disposal. The court declined to apply the more rigorous analysis given the amount of discovery conducted thus far in the litigation. The court found that the plaintiff made the requisite factual showing required to establish that she was similarly-situated to the members of the proposed collective action. For these reasons, the court granted the motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Quay, et al. v. Monarch Healthcare Management LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134751 (D. Minn. Aug. 3, 2023), is an excellent example of how the low evidentiary burden at the conditional certification stage can expose a defendant to a nationwide collective action. The plaintiffs, a group of certified nurses, filed a collective action alleging that the defendant failed to pay for missed meal breaks in violation of the FLSA and Minnesota state law. The plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of their FLSA claim, asserting that they were similarly-situated because all were or are nurses, were paid as non-exempt subject to overtime, had the same job duties, and were all subjected to the same practice of automatic meal deductions despite not actually receiving those breaks. Id. at *10-11. In support of their contentions, the plaintiffs provided declarations from nine individuals at five facilities alleging violations of overtime pay, and there were an additional 11 opt-in plaintiffs listed from five additional facilities. The court ruled that the plaintiffs made the requisite showing necessary to demonstrate that all nurses were similarly-situated in that they were all subject to the defendant ’ s allegedly unlawful meal period deduction policy. The court was also satisfied that others wanted to join the litigation, as there were 20 additional opt-in filings since the litigation commenced. Despite the “relatively low number of declarations” representing only 5 facilities, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of a collective action that included 45 facilities, reasoning that the totality of the opt-ins represented 10 total facilities. Id. at *11-12. Haro, et al. v. Walmart, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32051 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2023), similarly demonstrates the ability to certify a nationwide collective action, even where the defendant mounts a vigorous defense. The plaintiffs, a group of retail employees, filed a collective action alleging that the defendant required its non-exempt, hourly workers to undergo COVID-19 screenings before clocking-in for their shifts without providing overtime pay in violation of the FLSA. The plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of two collective actions, including one for California employees and another for employees outside California. The court determined that the defendant waived its personal jurisdiction challenge. Further, the court held that the plaintiffs’ evidence, which included declarations from several
9
© Duane Morris LLP 2024
Wage & Hour Class And Collective Action Review – 2024
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online