Wage & Hour Class And Collective Action Review – 2025

evidence that the defendant’s timekeeping policy was violated wage and hour laws. The court opined that given the differing ways in which the defendant paid for security screening time, whether the timekeeping records reflected missed or shortened meal periods and whether the defendant paid a premium for that missed meal periods were not class-wide issues. The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to meet the commonality requirement of Rule 23. The court also opined that the plaintiff’s claims were not typical to those of the proposed classes, as there was no common injury to the entire class. Accordingly, the court denied the motion for class certification. The same outcome occurred in Slepian, et al. v. Pink Jeep Tours, LLC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111436 (D. Ariz. May 21, 2024). The plaintiff, a former driver for an off-road tour company owned by the defendants, filed a class and collective action alleging that the defendants failed to pay for standby time and time spent on vehicle preparation in violation of the FLSA and Arizona wage & hour laws. The plaintiffs moved for class certification of the state law claims pursuant to Rule 23, and the court denied the motion. The plaintiffs alleged they were not paid for standby time when they had to be ready to work if a tour was scheduled and for time spent preparing their vehicles beyond the allotted 90 minutes. The defendants argued that plaintiffs could leave work when not on tour and that they had a procedure for employees to follow in the event they needed to be compensate for work beyond the 90-minute preparation time. The court ruled that the plaintiffs demonstrated common questions of law or fact regarding whether the defendants’ policies created a de-facto requirement for drivers to be on standby. However, the court stated that the plaintiffs failed to show that the named plaintiff’s claims were typical of the proposed class. The court ruled that the defendant’s evidence suggested that not all drivers were impacted similarly by the alleged policies, and therefore, it would be difficult to establish that the named plaintiff’s experiences were representative of the entire class. The court also determined that questions regarding the impact of the alleged de-facto policies and compensation for each driver predominated over common issues. For these reasons, the court denied the motion for class certification. Even if an employer is unsuccessful in decertifying the collective or class action altogether, after phase two of the conditional certification analysis is conducted, it may seek to redefine the class to encompass only appropriate opt-in plaintiffs. For example, in Perry, et al. v. Hardeman County Government, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83843 (W.D. Tenn. May 8, 2024), the plaintiffs filed a collective action alleging violations of the FLSA against Hardeman County entities and officials. The plaintiffs included investigators, deputies, and a dispatcher, all claiming unpaid overtime, incorrect pay calculations, inaccurate timesheets, misclassification, unpaid compensatory time, and improper payment upon resignation. Following a motion to amend, 22 new plaintiffs were added, including deputies, dispatchers, and a jailer. The plaintiffs also asserted new claims regarding mandatory training and off-the-clock work. The court conditionally certified the case as an FLSA collective action and identified eight sub-groups based on alleged violations. The defendants moved to decertify the collective action, and the court granted in part and denied in part the motion. The court determined that all 84 plaintiffs were not similarly-situated so as to proceed collectively as a single group. The court found that many of the plaintiffs no longer work for Hardeman County, and their job roles, terms of employment, and duties varied significantly. The plaintiffs requested partial certification of a sub-group consisting of 13 dispatchers within the collective action. These dispatchers alleged they were required to work a 48-hour week during every two-week pay period without receiving overtime pay, they were required to arrive 15 to 30 minutes early for shifts without compensation, they were required to complete training without compensation, and that compensatory time was incorrectly calculated at a rate of one hour for every overtime hour worked, rather than time-and-a-half as required by the FLSA. In support of these allegations, the plaintiff offered evidence, depositions, and interrogatory responses of several dispatchers. The Court determined that the plaintiffs’ evidence met the “stricter standard” for partial certification as similarly-situated plaintiffs as they all worked under the same supervisor and were subject to identical policies regarding timekeeping and compensation. Therefore, the court denied decertification of the dispatcher sub-group. Next, the plaintiffs proposed a sub-group comprising deputies who worked the first shift (8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.). They identified 12 deputies and argued that these deputies were similarly-situated regarding various FLSA violations, including uncompensated pre-shift and post-shift briefings, incorrect calculation of compensatory time, unpaid overtime, incomplete overtime calculations, unpaid end-of-shift paperwork, and unpaid hours between 40 and 43 hours per week. The court found that the deputies were similarly-situated for the purpose of collective action certification and denied decertification of that sub- group. The plaintiffs also proposed sub-groups for deputies working the second shift (4:00 p.m. to midnight) or third shift (midnight to 8:00 a.m.). They identified 16 deputies and argued that their claims were like those of the first shift deputies, with an additional claim regarding unpaid work for in-service training, obtaining warrants, and

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