Wage & Hour Class And Collective Action Review – 2025

specific job duties. The court reasoned that this blanket application of the exemptions suggested that the workers’ experiences were substantially similar, even if their individual tasks varied slightly. The court also opined that proceeding as a collective action would lower costs for the plaintiffs and consolidate the common legal and factual issues. Accordingly, the court denied the defendants’ motion for decertification of the collective action. In addition, the plaintiffs sought class certification for various state law claims, including violations of the Missouri Minimum Wage Law (MMWL), breach of contract for H-2B workers, and third-party beneficiary/unjust enrichment claims for citizen workers. The court ruled that the state law claims under the MMWL met the requirements for class certification under Rule 23. Despite the defendants’ arguments that the class definitions changed and that the classes were not ascertainable, the court concluded that the plaintiffs provided clear, objective criteria for identifying class members. For these reasons, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, and denied the defendants’ motion to decertify the collective action. In Green, et al. v. Perry's Restaurants Ltd ., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 228660 (D. Colo. Dec. 18, 2024), the plaintiff, filed a class action alleging that the defendant violated Colorado's wage and hour laws by failing to pay him and other servers the minimum wage, and instead paying a sub-minimum hourly wage and improperly using a tip credit. The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23, and the court granted the motion. The plaintiff moved for certification of a class of all current and former servers at the defendant’s Colorado location who were paid a sub-minimum wage over the three years prior to the lawsuit. The court focused on the two contested requirements of commonality and predominance. The court determined that the central issue of whether the defendant could claim the tip credit for servers was a common question that resolve all the plaintiffs' claims. The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s claims related to tip pooling, side work, uniform/equipment costs, and meal breaks would involve individualized inquiries, particularly with respect to whether certain employees were eligible to receive tip pool distributions or whether the tip pool was used to pay direct wages. The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s tip pool violated Colorado law because it included employees who did not customarily and regularly receive tips, such as food runners, bartenders, and hosts. The court found that the common question of whether these employees were ineligible for the tip pool predominated over any individual inquiries. Though defendants argued that individualized facts may be needed to determine eligibility for the tip pool, the court concluded that these issues were manageable on a class-wide basis. Accordingly, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for class certification. In Mangahas, et al. v. Eight Oranges Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98151 (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2024), the plaintiffs, a group of restaurant employees, filed a class and collective action alleging that the defendants failed to pay overtime compensation, minimum wage, proper tip credits, and for uniform reimbursement in violation of the FLSA and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). The court previously had conditionally certified the case as a collective action under FLSA. The plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion for class certification of the state law claims pursuant to Rule 23. The court granted the motion in part. The court determined that the proposed class of 129 tipped employees was sufficiently numerous. The court also ruled that the class members were all subject to the same common wage and hour practices which allegedly violated the NYLL. The court noted that the evidence showed both restaurants were managed similarly and had common labor practices that violated the law. The court determined that the class members, all restaurant workers with unpaid wage claims, likely lacked the financial means to pursue individual litigation, and therefore a class action would be the superior method of adjudicating the claims. Accordingly, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The plaintiff in Carlson, et at. v. Swift Transportation Co. Of Arizona, LLC , 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222456 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 9, 2024), a long-haul truck driver, filed a class action alleging that the defendant violated the Washington Minimum Wage Act (MWA) by failing to properly pay overtime to drivers. The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification of a class consisting of all Washington residents employed as drivers by the defendant, who were paid on a per-mile basis, for a period extending back three years. The court granted the motion. The court found that the class consisted of over 900 drivers and was therefore sufficiently numerous. The court also ruled that there were common legal questions, such as whether the defendant’s compensation system violated the MWA overtime provisions, which could be answered on class-wide basis. The court opined that the plaintiff’s claims were typical to those of the class members because they involved the same legal issues and conduct by the defendant. The court also explained that the plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel were able to adequately represent the class. As to the Rule 23(b) requirements, the court held that common questions ( e.g., whether the MWA applied and whether the defendant’s compensation system complied) predominated over individual questions. Finally, the court concluded that a class action would be superior to other methods for resolving the

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