maintained a “policy and practice of paying home health workers on a ‘ per event’ basis for time spent visiting patients based on a set visit rate for each visit completed of a certain type.” Id. at *2-3. The court previously had granted the plaintiff ’ s motion for conditional certification of the FLSA claims. Subsequently, the defendant moved to decertify the collective action, contending that decertification was warranted because of the small number of collective action members who opted-in to the action after notice was distributed. The court rejected the defendant ’ s argument. It opined that the requirements for numerosity did not apply to collective actions, and instead the court must review: (i) disparate factual and employment settings of the individual plaintiffs; (ii) the various defenses available to the defendant which appear individual to each plaintiff; and (iii) fairness and procedural considerations. Id. at *7-8. As to the first factor, the court found that the opt-In plaintiffs shared largely similar factual and employment settings because they all worked from the same centralized office under the same management, shared the common duty of providing home health care services, were classified as non-exempt, were paid on the same per event basis, and used the same electronic system to record their work time. Id. at *9. Additionally, the court found that the defendant ’ s arguments regarding unique defenses were essentially arguments that related to how much uncompensated overtime the defendants may owe to each plaintiff. The court also noted that whether a professional exemption applied to some collective action members’ claims was a simple question that did not warrant decertification. Finally, the court reasoned that the plaintiff ’ s claims should be addressed on a collective-wide basis, as requiring them to present their claims individually would be inefficient and expensive, and the facts and circumstances underlying their claims were largely the same. Accordingly, the court denied the motion for decertification. The mere existence of individualized issues will not necessarily prevent certification of a class action pursuant to Rule 23, as demonstrated by Hargrove, et al. v. Sleepy’s LLC, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 14553 (3d. Cir. June 12, 2023). The plaintiffs, a group of 111 delivery drivers, filed a class action alleging that the defendant misclassified them as independent contractors and thereby failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of state wage & hour laws. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23. Initially, the district court denied class certification, finding that the class was not ascertainable based on objective criteria since the defendant ’ s records did not distinguish full-time drivers. On appeal, the Third Circuit reversed the ruling and remanded for further considerations. On remand, the district court ultimately certified the class, concluding that the plaintiffs met the requirements for class certification under Rule 23(a). It found that common evidence could be used to establish the defendant ’ s liability, and that common issues of liability predominated over individual issues. On further appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court ’ s ruling. The defendant argued that common issues did not predominate over individual issues, making class certification inappropriate. The Third Circuit rejected this argument. It opined that common issues, such as whether drivers were misclassified as independent contractors, could be determined using common evidence. The Third Circuit also stated that a class action would be the superior method of adjudication, as adjudicating liability in a single class action was more efficient than holding potentially 111 separate trials. Id. at *3. The Third Circuit also rejected the defendant ’ s argument that the class representatives and class counsel failed to meet the adequacy requirement. The Third Circuit found that the class representatives would adequately protect the interests of the class, and there were no conflicts of interest between the named parties and the class members. Id. at *4. Accordingly, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court ’ s order granting the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Another example of individualized issues failing to prevent certification of a class action is Hogan, et al. v. Cleveland Ave Restaurant, Inc. d/b/a Sirens, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158070 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 6, 2023). In that case the plaintiffs alleged violations of the FLSA and Ohio law, asserting claims against seven adult entertainment clubs and their owners and managers as well as two club associations and an individual defendant with which the clubs were associated. The allegations in the operative complaint centered on the clubs’ use of a landlord-tenant system by which the defendants charged dancers “rent” to perform at the clubs for tips from customers in lieu of paying wages for hours worked. The plaintiffs moved for certification of their claims as a class and collective action. In support of their motion, the plaintiffs submitted sworn declarations, deposition testimony, and documentary evidence of the defendants’ policies and practices with respect to dancers. The court found that the plaintiffs showed that the clubs maintained
35
© Duane Morris LLP 2024
Wage & Hour Class And Collective Action Review – 2024
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online