18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

104 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition also met because there was no indication that any named Plaintiff had interests that were antagonistic to or at odds with those of the putative class members. Furthermore, Defendants did not dispute the qualifications of Plaintiffs’ lawyers. For these reasons, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs met the adequacy requirement of Rule 23(a)(4). Relative to the Rule 23(b)(3)’s requirements, the Court opined that common questions of fact and law predominated with respect to Plaintiffs’ NYLL claims in light of the fact that the claims were all based on Defendants’ allegedly unlawful compensation practices that applied to all class members, i.e., that Defendants did not pay overtime premiums for hours worked in excess of 40 per week and failed to pay workers for all hours worked; did not provide wage statements with the payment of wages; and did not provide wage notices at any time. Finally, the Court determined that a class action was the superior method of adjudication because given the relatively small return, the Court explained that it was unlikely that the class members would be able to bear the considerable expense of bringing individual lawsuits. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3). Rosario, et al. v. Valentino U.S.A., Inc. , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178803 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2022). Plaintiffs filed a collective action alleging that Defendant, a design house, misclassified them as exempt employees and thereby failed to pay them overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, which the Court denied. Plaintiffs worked in various capacities for Defendant. Plaintiffs asserted that the misclassification of employees as exempt form overtime was widespread across all areas of Defendant’s company. Following a human resources investigation, Defendant reclassified several categories of its employees in early 2019. Plaintiffs contended that they should receive back pay for overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 in a workweek for the time prior to the reclassification. In support of their motion, Plaintiffs offered declarations alleging that they worked over 40 hours a week when they were classified as exempt and did not receive overtime for their work because of their exemption status. The Court explained that it would not assume that the re-classification of employees was "an admission of improper classification," and, alone, a reclassification of an employee’s position was "insufficient to justify conditional certification." Id . at *10. The Court opined that simply alleging that Defendant had a common policy because the employees were reclassified was insufficient. The Court also determined that Plaintiffs failed to establish that they were similarly-situated to all current and former non-executive corporate and retail employees who were reclassified. Id . at *11. The Court ruled that Plaintiffs failed to name any positions, departments, or duties that could lead to an inference of similarities among job responsibilities. The Court reasoned that the fact that Plaintiffs sought to include both corporate and retail employees also went against a finding that all of the members of the proposed collective action were similarly-situated. The Court ruled that Plaintiff failed to allege any common thread between the proposed collective action members beyond their exempt status. For these reasons, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Ruiz, et al. v. Nationwide Court Services, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55367 (E.D.N.Y. March 23, 2021). Plaintiff, a process server courier, filed a collective action alleging that Defendants failed to pay minimum wage in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, which the Court granted. The Court noted that it was undisputed that Defendants paid Plaintiff and other process servers on a "piece-rate basis" for every service of process assignment completed. Id . at *3. Under Defendants’ "quota system," all employees were required to complete 93 serves in a two-week pay period. The Court held that Plaintiff met his requisite burden of showing that process servers were similarly-situated with respect to their job requirements and pay provisions and were subject to a common policy or scheme. Further, the Court noted that Defendants admitted these facts. In undertaking its own independent analysis of the motion, the Court ruled that Plaintiff had satisfied the requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Ruiz, et al. v. Truffa Pizzeria & Wine Room Corp. , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28542 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2021). Plaintiff, a restaurant cook, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, which the Court granted. Plaintiff asserted that Defendant regularly scheduled him and others similarly-situated to work over 40 hours per week without a meal break and that he was paid on a flat rate weekly salary without being paid overtime compensation for hours worked over 40. Plaintiff also contended that he and others were regularly made to perform off-the-clock work without compensation. Plaintiff sought conditional certification of a collective