Wage & Hour Class And Collective Action Review – 2025

compensation directives, which led to underpayment. In his motion for class and conditional certification, the plaintiff sought to include all current and former Field and Network Technicians who did not sign arbitration agreements and worked for Level 3 in the past three years for the FLSA claim, and those denied compensation for work over the last four years for the state law claim. The court denied the plaintiff’s motions for class certification under Rule 23 and conditional certification for a collective action under the FLSA. The court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he and the opt-in plaintiffs were similarly-situated, as required for collective action certification. The court noted that several opt-in plaintiffs were not proper parties, as they either did not work for Level 3 or were inactive during the relevant period. Even considering the remaining opt-in plaintiffs, the court observed significant differences in pay policies between union and non-union employees and among the different unions. The court determined that the discrepancies would require individualized inquiries that would make collective-wide treatment inappropriate. Additionally, the court determined that the plaintiff failed to meet the commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23 certification due to varying compensation structures between all proposed class members. Accordingly, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for class certification and conditional certification of a collective action. The plaintiff in Adam, et al. v. Bloomberg L.P., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186035 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2024), filed a class and collective action alleging that the defendant failed to pay overtime compensation and failed to provide accurate wage statements in violation of the FLSA and the New York Labor Law. The plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, and the Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion be denied. The court subsequently adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and denied the motion. The court agreed with the Magistrate Judge that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the claims that other employees shared the same duties and were subject to the same pay provisions. The court determined that the plaintiff’s declarations were vague and provided no concrete details about the other employees or how they knew about their working hours and pay. The court therefore denied the motion for conditional certification but allowed the plaintiff the opportunity to renew the motion with a more developed factual record. In another example where individualized inquiries precluded certification, in Hampton, et al. v. McDermott International, Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70610 (W.D. La. Apr. 17, 2024), the plaintiffs, a group of employees, filed a collective action alleging that the defendant failed to pay for all hours worked and thereby denied overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. The plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, and the court denied the motion. The defendants were engaged in the energy and construction industry and were hired to construct the Cameron Liquefaction Plant in Louisiana. The plaintiffs alleged that they were not compensated for attending daily pre-start safety meetings before their scheduled shift start time. The plaintiffs claimed that they, along with others similarly-situated, were required to attend the safety meetings, which resulted in uncompensated “off-the-clock” work. The plaintiffs argued that the putative collective members were similarly-situated because they worked in similar positions, were paid hourly wages, and were subject to the same alleged practice of attending pre-start safety meetings without compensation. The defendants countered that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that all employees were subject to the same practice and that individualized inquiries would be necessary. The court found that the plaintiffs’ experiences varied significantly based on their crews, supervisors, and locations within the facility. The court opined that individualized inquiries would be necessary to determine whether each employee was required to attend the pre-start meetings. The court also noted that the defendants’ defenses were highly individualized, and given the significant differences in employees’ experiences, certifying the collective action would not promote judicial efficiency or serve the objectives of the FLSA. For these reasons, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that they were similarly-situated to the proposed collective action members and denied the motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Even at the lenient first step in the lenient two-step certification analysis, attacking the quality of the plaintiffs’ evidence can effectively prevent conditional certification, as shown by Huang, et al. v. Bai Wei LLC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87797 (E.D. Penn. May 15, 2024). The plaintiff, a restaurant chef, filed a class and collective action alleging that the defendant failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA and state wage & hour laws. The plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, which the court denied. The plaintiffs asserted that he worked 70 hours a week at a flat monthly rate without overtime pay, breaks, or clear wage information. In support of his motion, the plaintiff offered his own affidavit and affidavits of other employees, work schedules, and employee pay records. The court, however, determined that there were

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