including log-in and log-out processes and other unpaid tasks. The court determined that the plaintiff made the requisite showing necessary to establish that she was similarly-situated to the members of the proposed collective action. The court therefore granted the plaintiff ’ s motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Nor can a defendant simply raise the possibility of an applicable defense to avoid conditional certification. In Guy, et al. v. Absopure Water Co., Case No. 20-CV-12734 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 21, 2023), the plaintiffs, a group of current and former deliver drivers, filed a collective action alleging that the defendant, a bottled water company, failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. The plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, and the court granted the motion. In support of their motion, the plaintiffs offered their own declarations that stated that the defendant failed to keep track of drivers’ working hours and that they all had the same job duties and job title. Further, the declarations all stated that the drivers were exempt employees and were not paid overtime compensation despite regularly working over 40 hours in a workweek. The court determined that that the plaintiffs provided sufficient evidence that they were similarly-situated to the proposed collective action members such that conditional certification was appropriate. For these reasons, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification. However, the court noted that it was unclear at this early stage whether the drivers were engaged in interstate commerce and thus eligible for the Motor Carrier Act (MCA) exemption to the FLSA. Cases in which plaintiffs claim to have been misclassified as exempt are also commonly certified as collective actions on a conditional basis. For example, in Golden, et al. v. Quality Life Services, LLC , 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74742 (D. N.Mex. Apr. 30, 2023), the plaintiffs, a group of former direct service personnel (DSPs), filed a collective and class action alleging that the defendant misclassified them as independent contractors rather than employees, and thereby failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act (NMMWA). The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification of the state law claims and conditional certification of the FLSA claims. The court granted the motion for conditional certification, and denied the motion for class certification. The plaintiffs argued that the case presented common legal questions related to the classification of DSPs as independent contractors. The defendant contended that variations in job duties and work hours would require individualized inquiries. The court agreed with the plaintiffs that the common issue of whether the DSPs were properly classified satisfied the commonality requirement, but it found that the plaintiffs’ claims were not typical to those of the class. The court thereby denied the motion for Rule 23 class certification of the NMMWA claims. However, the court concluded that the plaintiffs met their burden by showing that they and the putative collective members were similarly-situated for purposes of conditional certification of the FLSA claims. The court held that the plaintiffs established the propriety of a collective action of QLS DSPs who worked overtime without receiving overtime pay. Accordingly, the court granted the motion for conditional certification and denied the motion for class certification. Thompson, et al. v. RCX, LLC , 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29442 (D.D.C. Apr. 23, 2023), is an example of a misclassification case in which the common applicability of policies resulted in conditional certification. In that case, the plaintiffs filed a class and collective action alleging that the defendant misclassified the plaintiffs as independent contractors and thereby violated the FLSA, the District of Columbia Wage Payment and Collection Law (DCWPCL), and the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Revision Act (DCMWRA). The plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss. The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion in part, and denied the defendant ’ s motion. The court determined that the plaintiffs made the requisite showing necessary to establish that they were similarly-situated to the members of the proposed collective action. The court opined that the plaintiffs sufficiently established that they were all subject to the defendant ’ s policies and procedures which allegedly violated the FLSA. For these reasons, the court denied the motion to dismiss and granted conditional certification of a collective action. Finally, in hybrid actions bringing FLSA and state law unpaid overtime claims, the complexities of the Rule 23 class actions are not a bar to conditional certification of FLSA collective actions, as demonstrated by
14
© Duane Morris LLP 2024
Wage & Hour Class And Collective Action Review – 2024
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online