Wage & Hour Class And Collective Action Review – 2025

plaintiffs that did not reside or work in New York based on the Supreme Court decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court Of California, San Francisco County , 582 U.S. 255 (2017). The district court ultimately agreed with defendant and denied the motion, holding that the court lacked specific personal jurisdiction over opt-in plaintiffs with no connection to New York. The district court began its analysis by reasoning that under the FLSA, all opt-in plaintiffs are “parties” to the action under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Next, the court explained the general principles of personal jurisdiction and noted that the FLSA contains no mechanism for nationwide service of process. Thus, the court’s personal jurisdiction over the opt-in plaintiffs was limited by New York law. Applying Bristol-Meyers , the court concluded that the requisite connection between the opt-in plaintiffs’ claims and the forum did not exist, given their lack of any connection to New York. The court also analyzed the approaches in other case law authorities to the same issue, noting that several courts have found FLSA collective actions like the mass tort action at issue in Bristol-Meyers , and noting that the reasoning of the courts that have held otherwise is unpersuasive. Finally, the court rejected any policy-based arguments for declining to apply the principle of Bristol-Meyers to an FLSA collective action, noting that it was up to Congress, and not judges, to fix any gaps in the law. As a result, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion and limited the collective action to only those individuals that resided or worked in New York. Employer also successfully attacked class and collective action claims this past year by challenging the sufficiency of the allegations in a plaintiff’s pleading prior to a motion for conditional certification. In Weise, et al. v. Blue Line Law Firm PLLC , 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2893 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 5, 2024), the plaintiff filed a collective action alleging that the defendants paid her less than the statutory minimum wage and constructively discharged her in violation of the FLSA. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The court granted in part and denied in part the motion. The plaintiff’s complaint alleged that the defendants hired her to work as a remote paralegal, at a rate of $21 per hour for hours worked up to 40 in a workweek. The plaintiff asserted that she worked at least three hours over 40 per workweek for which she was not paid, and that she complained multiple times regarding the non-payment. The defendants asserted that the plaintiff was an independent contractor and thereby not entitled to overtime pay pursuant to the FLSA. The defendants requested that the court consider documents included in an EEOC file that they claimed would establish the independent contractor relationship. The court declined to consider the EEOC materials, as they were not properly before the court or in the public record. The court thus determined that the plaintiff’s allegations sufficiently alleged an employee/employer relationship. The defendants next argued that the plaintiff’s complaint was defective because it “does not specify what times were worked nor does it state that any invoice, time sheet, or claim for lunch time or overtime were ever submitted to Blue Line Law Firm.” Id. at *5. The court also rejected this argument. It found that the complaint was clear enough that the defendants were able understand the legal claims being asserted and the factual theory supporting them. Finally, the defendants asserted that the plaintiff’s complaint failed to contain any allegations that there were other, similarly-situated employees. The court agreed, opining that the complaint was devoid of any specific facts outlining other employees who were subjected to the same alleged treatment by the defendants. The court noted that the complaint only stated that there were “other similarly-situated individuals” who were not paid the proper wages. Id. at *7. The court determined that these claims were not alleged sufficiently to plausibly state a basis for a collective action. For these reasons, the court denied the motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s individual claims but granted the motion as to the collective action claims. Arbitration agreements are often an effective tool to defeat class and collective action lawsuits, particularly where a defendant can use these arbitration agreements to highlight the differences between class and collective action members. In Brum, et al. v. Marketsource, Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45713 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2024), the plaintiffs, a group of employees, filed a class action lawsuit against MarketSource Inc. and Allegis Group, Inc., alleging violations of California labor laws and business codes. The plaintiffs sought class certification for claims related to overtime pay, meal and rest breaks, wage statements, and reimbursement of business expenses. The Magistrate Judge recommended denying the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The defendant provides sales and retail personnel to clients for selling third-party products. The plaintiffs sought to certify a class comprising of all hourly employees who worked for MarketSource in California during the relevant time-period. The Magistrate Judge, however, determined that the majority of the proposed class members had signed valid arbitration agreements with the defendant, and therefore, class certification would be inappropriate. As the named plaintiffs did not sign an agreement, the Magistrate Judge ruled that the plaintiffs failed to meet the typically and adequacy requirements of Rule 23. The Magistrate Judge opined that the remaining proposed sub-class, consisting of individuals employed before MarketSource began distributing

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