Wage & Hour Class And Collective Action Review – 2025

explained that the common proof does not “have to be time records, but it has to be ‘sufficient to show the amount of the employees’ work as a matter of just and reasonable inference.’” Id. The plaintiff offered no alternate to time records; rather, as the court put it - “She just asks me to draw an inference from the absence of records.” Id. The court clarified that demonstrating predominance does not require a plaintiff “to prove the measure of each paralegal’s damages,” but rather the plaintiff “must be able to demonstrate the fact of damage (meaning injury or impact) on a class-wide basis.” Id. Accordingly, the court granted conditional certification of a collective action, but denied the motion for class certification. Finally, Lawrence, et al. v. NYC Medical Practice, P.C., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14339 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2024), demonstrates the importance of establishing differences amongst the putative class that cannot be easily cured in order to prevent class certification. The plaintiffs, four employees from Goals Aesthetics and Plastic Surgery, a New York-based medical practice, filed a class action against their employer, alleging violations of the FLSA and New York Labor Law (NYLL) by failing to pay overtime compensation and manipulating their time records. The court previously had conditionally certified a collective action of the FLSA claims and granted class certification of the NYLL claims. The defendants subsequently sought to decertify the NYLL class, arguing that significant differences among class members, especially those classified as salaried and potentially exempt from overtime, led to individual issues predominating. The court found that the original class did not meet the predominance requirement of Rule 23 due to these differences. However, rather than fully decertify the class, the court decided to modify the class definition. The revised class would exclude salaried employees and include only hourly employees who were allegedly not paid proper overtime. This adjustment, the court concluded, would allow the class action to proceed effectively. In evaluating the redefined class for certification purposes, the court first found that the named plaintiffs met the typicality requirement because their claims were similar to those of other class members, as they both worked as receptionists and faced the same issues with the defendants’ timekeeping and compensation policies. The court also opined that the plaintiffs were adequate representatives for the redefined class, as they had the same interests and face the same issues as the class members. Furthermore, the court found that the class counsel had the necessary experience and qualifications to effectively handle the class action. The court ruled the redefined class met the predominance requirement because common issues of the defendants’ policies and practices predominated over individual differences. Finally, the court concluded that a class action would be the superior method to adjudicate the plaintiffs’ claims, because of relatively small amount of potential recovery for each class member compared to the cost of litigation. Accordingly, the court denied the defendant’s motion to decertify the class action. 7. Other Rulings In Class And Collective Actions An employer with a legally-sound argument for defeating the merits of wage and hour claims asserted against it may choose, after failing to fracture a class or collective action or as an alternative, to attack the merits of the plaintiff ’ s claims, either at summary judgment, at trial, or on appeal of a dispositive issue. In 2024, this approach led to substantial victories for employers, although the risk that the plaintiff can also prevail on summary judgment or at trial should reinforce the inherent risks presented when proceeding to the merits of wage and hour litigation. In a significant win for employers within the Eleventh Circuit, Nissan was able to defeat a class and collective action after plaintiffs failed to establish joint employer liability. In Ayala, et al. v. Nissan North America, Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 2965 (11th Cir. Feb. 8, 2024), the plaintiffs, two automotive service employees (Technicians) working at Florida Nissan dealerships, filed suit against Nissan alleging violations of the FLSA and the Florida Minimum Wage Act (FMWA), for failure to pay wages as required by law. Id. at *3. They also sought conditional certification of a collective action pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), as well as certification of the FMWA claims as a class action under Rule 23. The Technicians alleged they performed vehicle repair and maintenance on behalf of Nissan at the dealerships but were not compensated as required by law. Id. Specifically, they pointed to Nissan’s Assurance Products Resource Manual (APRM) and Dealership Agreements, which determined how much Nissan paid dealerships for warranty work conducted by technicians, regardless of how long the work took. Pursuant to the APRM and the Dealership Agreements, Nissan agreed with each dealership to reimburse the dealership according to the “flat-rate” system. Id. at * 3. The Technicians argued that — when the warranty work took longer than the “flat-rate time” determined by Nissan, thus limiting Nissan’s reimbursement to the dealership — the result is that they were underpaid by the dealership. Id. at *4. The Technicians asserted that Nissan was a joint employer, which Nissan contested. The district court agreed with

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