Wage & Hour Class And Collective Action Review – 2025

court appearances. The court found insufficient evidence that these deputies were similarly-situated regarding claims for in-service training and obtaining warrants off duty. While there was some evidence of unpaid court appearances, the court opined that it was not detailed enough to support collective action certification. Therefore, the court granted the defendants’ motion for decertification of this sub-group. The court also granted the motion for decertification with respect to dispatchers and radio operations, finding insufficient evidence that the group was similarly-situated. The court also granted decertification for a sub-group of sheriff’s deputies. The court found that correctional officers, who worked similar shifts, faced common issues such as unpaid overtime, incorrect comp time calculations, and off-the-clock work, making them suitable for collective action under the FLSA, and thereby denied decertification of that sub-group. The court also found that correctional officer sergeant’s certification was proper because they had similar job duties and were subject to the same alleged illegal pay policies. For these reasons, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for decertification. Certification of a collective action is limited to FLSA claims, but the plaintiffs’ bar is constantly in search of novel legal theories, as demonstrated by Obermeier, et al. v. Northeast Work & Safety Boats, LLC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48094 (D. Conn. Mar. 19, 2024), where plaintiffs unsuccessfully attempted to proceed with collective action certification pursuant to state law. The plaintiff, a deckhand and boat captain employed by Northeast Work & Safety Boat, LLC (Northeast), filed a lawsuit alleging violations of the FLSA, the New Jersey Prevailing Wage Act, the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, the Pennsylvania Prevailing Wage Act, and common law. The plaintiff contended that Northeast failed to pay required overtime wages under the FLSA and failed to pay prevailing minimum wages under New Jersey and Pennsylvania law. The plaintiff moved for conditional certification of an FLSA collective and two state law-based collective actions. The court granted the motion for FLSA conditional certification and denied the motion for sub-collective actions under state law theories. The court determined that the plaintiff met the modest burden required for conditional certification of the FLSA collective action by providing declarations from himself and three other employees, which indicated a common policy of not paying for time spent on pre-worksite activities. However, the court denied conditional certification for the state law sub-groups, noting that such a procedure lacked statutory authority and diverged from Second Circuit precedent. The court suggested that the plaintiff instead pursue class certification under Rule 23 for the state law claims. Accordingly, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion for conditional certification. 6. Rulings Denying Decertification Or Granting Rule 23 Class Certification Employers that failed to decertify collective or class actions or failed to prevent certification of a class action in 2024 were unable to do so largely because of an overreliance on individualized damages or the failure to rebut the applicability of a common policy, even where the policy ’ s application may have varied. Additionally, 2024 brought further insight into the pitfalls of seeking decertification too late in the Fifth and Sixth Circuits, which do not employ the two-stage certification approach. For example, in Gomez, et al. v. Epic Landscape Products, L.C., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196248 (D. Kan. Oct. 29, 2024), the plaintiffs, a group of current and former lawn and landscape workers employed by defendants, filed a class and collective action alleging that the defendants failed to pay overtime for hours worked beyond 40 in a week. The workers included both local employees and temporary laborers from Mexico under the H-2B visa program. The defendants provided lawn care and landscaping services in Kansas and Missouri and classified the workers as exempt from overtime under the Motor Carrier Act (MCA) exemption, and the agricultural and administrative exemptions. The workers argued that they spent most of their time performing manual labor and should have received overtime pay. The court previously had granted the plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of the FLSA claims. The defendants subsequently filed a motion to decertify the collective action, and the plaintiffs moved for class certification of the state law claims pursuant to Rule 23. The court denied the defendants’ motion and granted the plaintiffs’ motion. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs’ job duties and employment experiences varied such that conditional certification was not appropriate. The defendants argued that the members of the collective action had differing job titles (e.g., foremen, laborers, mechanics) and varying job tasks ( e.g., driving trucks, loading equipment), which would require individual analysis. The court disagreed. It found that despite some differences in job titles and tasks, the core question for the case — whether the plaintiffs were exempt from overtime under the MCA, agricultural, or administrative exemptions — should be resolved collectively. The court determined that most of the plaintiffs performed the same core tasks, particularly manual labor, and that the defendants had uniformly classified all workers as exempt without considering their

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