Wage & Hour Class And Collective Action Review – 2025

consisting of all CDL B and Non-CDL drivers who worked out of the warehouse and did not receive overtime pay from October 27, 2017, to the present. The court agreed to apply a “modest plus” standard for the motion, as some discovery was already conducted. The defendant argued that it adhered to the applicable collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) and that it provided sufficient overtime pay since May 2020. The defendant argued that individual assessments would thereby be necessary to determine if drivers fell under the MCA exemption, and therefore conditional certification was not appropriate. The court determined that the defendant’s arguments regarding the CBAs and individualized inquiries went to the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims and were thus unsuitable for resolution at the conditional certification stage. The court found that the plaintiffs had presented evidence, including declarations from two named plaintiffs asserting that they, along with their co- workers, had not received proper overtime pay. Accordingly, the court granted the motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Additionally, the plaintiffs requested equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for potential opt-in plaintiffs, to the filing date of the original complaint. The court noted that although the initial complaint was filed on October 27, 2020, and most opt-in plaintiffs joined soon after, the plaintiffs did not seek conditional certification of the collective action at that time. The court opined that the plaintiffs could have pursued certification while conducting the limited discovery on the MCA exemption, and yet they failed to do so. The court identified the first point for potential tolling in early 2023 when plaintiffs sought to certify a collective action during the parties’ briefing on cross-motions for partial summary judgment. Accordingly, the court granted equitable tolling starting from January 4, 2023, when the plaintiffs made their request, acknowledging their reasonable diligence in seeking to notify potential opt-in plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ limited evidence is often used to establish an alleged common policy or practice at the conditional certification stage, as demonstrated by Mitchell, et al. v. Villas Of Holly Brook Senior Living, LLC , 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123342 (C.D. Ill. July 8, 2024). The plaintiff, a case worker, filed a class and collective action alleging that the defendant violated the FLSA, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. Specifically, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant failed to compensate her and other hourly care workers for all hours worked, including overtime, by requiring them to work through unpaid meal breaks. The plaintiff contended that the defendant’s practice involved forcing employees to clock-out for 30 minutes for meal breaks during shifts, while they were still expected to perform work duties. If an employee forgot to clock out, the company would automatically deduct 30 minutes from their wages, which led to significant unpaid work hours and violations of both federal and state wage laws. The plaintiff asserted that her job involved assisting residents with daily activities and that she, along with others in the collective action, often worked beyond their scheduled hours without proper pay. The plaintiff and several employees alleged that they were regularly required to work overtime and often did not receive full, uninterrupted meal breaks, which were routinely interrupted by resident care demands. In support of the motion for conditional certification, the plaintiff offered several employee affidavits, which outlined their experiences working for the defendant. The affidavits asserted that the employees’ meals breaks were regularly interrupted, and that the defendant did not pay for time spent working during meal breaks. The defendant argued that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a shared policy or practice among employees that constituted an FLSA violation. The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s claims lacked a common method of proof and that any individual issues would make the collective action unmanageable. The court noted that the standard for conditional certification required only a minimal showing that potential collective action members share commonality regarding the alleged policy or plan that violated the law. The court determined that the plaintiff successfully established a link among potential collective action members, indicating they may have been affected by the same unlawful wage practices. The court concluded that the affidavits provided sufficient evidence of a shared experience among employees regarding unpaid meal breaks. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Another example of common practices being successfully used to conditionally certify an FLSA collective action, despite variations in job titles and responsibilities, is Kneppar, et al. v. Elevance Health Co., Inc ., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46822 (D. Md. Mar. 18, 2024), where the plaintiff filed a collective and class action alleging that the defendant failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA, the Maryland Wage Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law. The plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action consisting of all Maryland-based medical management nurses and utilization reviewers employed by the defendant. The court granted the motion. The plaintiff contended that she and similarly-situated employees of the defendant were primarily responsible for conducting “medical necessity reviews” for “medical authorization requests submitted by healthcare providers against pre-determined guidelines and criteria for insurance coverage and payment purposes.” Id. at *2-3. The plaintiff also stated that she and other similarly-

Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online