18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 127 decision, plan, or policy to which they were all subject. The Court rejected Defendant’s contention. The Court noted that Defendant was essentially arguing that Plaintiff must submit evidence that he would be able overcome Defendant’s affirmative defenses before the Court could authorize notice under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Id . at *9. The Court opined that Plaintiff was not required to do so at the conditional certification stage. The Court also ruled that the allegations in the complaint along with the evidence made the requisite showing necessary at the conditional certification stage to establish that similarly-situated individuals existed. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Segovia, et al. v. Fuelco Energy Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101258 (W.D. Tex. May 28, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of gas production crew members, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant failed to correctly calculate the overtime compensation rate in violation of the FLSA. The Court previously had granted Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Following discovery, Defendant filed a motion to decertify the collective action, which the Court denied. Defendant placed its crew members on-call and paid them their regular rate of pay for time spent on-call at the hotel. Defendant also paid them their regular rate of pay for their commute time to the job site. Defendant did not include either on-call time ("standby time") or commuting time (“drive time") in its overtime pay calculations, but it would include some on-call time in its overtime calculations if the employee was on "standby" at the job site or working in Defendant’s "yard performing various tasks." Id . at *4. Defendant contended that certification was not appropriate because whether crew members were paid for all hours worked and paid the correct overtime rate would require individual inquiries, and would delve into specific facts for each employee. Id . at *24. Plaintiffs asserted that they were "nearly identically situated with respect to the critical issues in this case." Id. The Court ruled that Defendant’s payment practices or policies were common among all employees, and the employees had highly similar employment settings, with each employee performing the same or essentially the same work under the same set of supervisors subject to the same pay provisions and policies or practices. Id . at *25. As a result, the Court determined that collective action members’ similarities of their factual and employment settings supported proceeding as a collective action. For these reasons, the Court denied Defendant’s motion for decertification. Smith, et al. v. P&B Intermodal Services, Inc., Case No. 20-CV-3618 (N.D. Tex. May 26, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of technicians, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant failed to include their incentive payments when calculating overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, which the Court granted. The Court found that Plaintiffs had sufficiently provided evidence that they were similarly-situated to the membership of the proposed collective action such that conditional certification was appropriate. For these reasons, the Court granted conditional certification to Plaintiffs’ proposed collective action consisting of all current and/or former CCT1 Technicians in Texas who were paid on an hourly basis who also received pay labeled as “incentives” in their earnings statements that was not included in their regular rates of pay when calculating overtime compensation for weeks in which they worked over 40 hours. Id . at 1. Sonnier, et al. v. ReCon Management Services, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169455 (W.D. La. Sept. 7, 2021). Plaintiff, an electrical instrument designer, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. The Court previously had granted Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action. After discovery, Defendants subsequently filed a motion to decertify the collective action, which the Court granted. Defendant contended that the individualized defenses relative to the claims of the opt-in Plaintiffs would make proceeding as a collective action unmanageable, as the different types of employees were classified as exempt from overtime pay under various FLSA exemptions. Defendant asserted that Plaintiffs worked either "in-plant" or "in-house," or "in-plant" and "in-house,” and within those categories worked at separate locations, for separate entities, subject to separate rules and regulations promulgated by each respective client, and with different pay structures, schedules, and job duties as per the client contract with Defendant. Further, Defendant argued that Plaintiff was not similarly-situated to the collective action members because they all performed their duties in multiple locations for various clients, each with their own unique organizational structures, regulations, job requirements, and supervisors. Id . at *5. In response, Plaintiff contended that Defendant’s exemption defenses would not prevent collective-wide treatment, that Defendant did not explained how Plaintiffs fell within the administrative, executive, professional, and combination exemptions, or how the exemptions applied. The Court agreed with Defendant that collective-wide