18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

126 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition Loy, et al. v. Rehab Synergies, LLC , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166812 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 2, 2021). Plaintiff, a therapist, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay for all wages due in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, which the Court granted. After discovery, Defendant subsequently moved to decertify the collective action, and the Court denied the motion. Plaintiff argued that the productivity requirement set by Defendant, combined with the threat of discipline for failing to meet productivity goals, led to regular off-the-clock work at all of Defendant’s facilities. Plaintiff further asserted that Defendant was aware of the off-the-work work and expressly encouraged it. The Court previously had conditionally certified a collective action consisting of all current and former practitioners employed by Defendant in five different jobs, including speech language pathologists, physical therapists, physical therapist assistants, occupational therapists, and certified occupational therapist assistants. Defendant argued that decertification was proper because the opt-in Plaintiffs in these five categories were not similarly-situated. The Court disagreed. It held that the differences in the job titles held by Plaintiffs and the members of the collective action did not mean that they were not similarly-situated. Defendant further argued that because the Court concluded that while there were differences between Plaintiffs, they were not material to the merits question, i.e ., if they were all subject to the same productivity requirements that led to underpayment. The Court opined that the additional evidence uncovered in discovery did not alter the Court’s findings, and actually helped strengthen Plaintiffs’ claims because they provided evidence that they were all affected by the same company-wide policy. As a result, the Court determined that Plaintiffs and the members of the collective action were similarly-situated. Defendant also argued that their individual defenses would led to mini-trials of each Plaintiffs’ claim such that collective action treatment was not appropriate. The Court again disagreed with Defendant, finding that the defenses largely applied to Plaintiffs’ common claims. Defendant further argued that individual damages would require a case-by-case inquiry, resulting in procedural complexity. The Court, however, ruled that the evidence for the Plaintiffs’ damages calculations significantly overlapped with the evidence Plaintiffs offered to prove the collective-wide issues. The Court opined that should it decertify the case, there would be 34 trials of exactly the same question as to Defendant’s liability under the FLSA, which would result decreased efficiency, higher costs for all parties, wasted judicial resources, and disregard for the purposes of § 216(b). Accordingly, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to decertify the collective action. Moore, et al. v. MW Servicing, LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47778 (E.D. La. March 19, 2021). Plaintiff, an assistant property manager at Defendants’ apartment complex, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay all wages due in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, which the Court granted. Plaintiff alleged that she and others were denied their final paycheck at the end of their employment with Defendant. Plaintiff offered deposition testimony from Defendant’s accounting manager, which established that individual Defendant Bruno "specifically instructed that employees should not be paid final wages and overtime, regardless of job title or whether they were hourly or salaried.” Id . at *6. Plaintiff also submitted an additional declaration that averred that the policy to not pay employees their final paycheck was well known among employees. The Court held that Plaintiff’s declarations specifically detailing Defendant’s instructions for imposing an unlawful, company-wide policy were sufficient to demonstrate that employees were similarly-situated for purposes of conditional certification. The Court ruled that the allegations, if true, established that all members of the putative collective action would be similarly-situated with respect to Plaintiffs’ claims because they also would not have received a final paycheck or overtime under Defendant’s alleged scheme. Id . at *7. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Powell, et al. v. One Source EHS LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176570 (M.D. La. Sept. 16, 2021) . Plaintiff, a safety manager, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, which the Court granted. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant paid straight-time pay for any hours worked over 40 in a workweek, thereby paying the same rate for all hours worked. Plaintiff sought conditional certification of a collective action consisting of all hourly employees over the past three years who were paid straight-time pay for overtime hours worked. In support of his motion, Plaintiff offered timesheets that indicated that employees were paid the straight time for overtime. Defendant argued that since it is legal to pay an exempt employee straight time for overtime, Plaintiff could not meet his burden of demonstrating that the members of the collective action were similarly-situated without also presenting evidence that they were misclassified as exempt pursuant to a