18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

132 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition experiences, Defendant had a policy and practice to pay its hourly workers for their scheduled shifts and not the actual time that they worked. Defendant argued that two of the opt-in Plaintiffs were not similarly-situated to the membership of the proposed collective action because one claim was time-barred and one worked in a different location. The Court ruled that Defendant’s arguments went to the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims and were thus unsuitable for consideration at the conditional certification stage. The Court found that Plaintiffs met the burden to demonstrate that they were similarly-situated to other hourly paid employees and that they were all subject to the same timekeeping policies. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Beaver, et al. v. Eastland Mall Holdings, LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40185 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 8, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of mall employees, filed a class and collective action alleging that Defendants failed to pay the correct overtime compensation rate in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, which the Court granted. Plaintiffs alleged that they are employed in various hourly, non- exempt positions and that Defendants compensated them at their regular rates of pay for all hours worked, even in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Plaintiffs sought conditional certification of a collective action consisting of “all individuals currently and formerly employed by Defendants at Eastland Mall during the previous three years, who were paid on an hourly basis, and who did not receive overtime payment at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate pay for all hours worked in a workweek in excess of 40.” Id . at *2. In support of their motion, Plaintiffs offered declarations stating that they worked for Defendants in administrative, maintenance, and security roles, and that Defendants compensated all employees on an hourly basis in the same manner. Plaintiffs’ declarations also averred that they were aware of approximately 40 other hourly employees who was paid in the same manner. Plaintiffs also asserted that they requested paystubs from Defendants in order to submit with their motion, and Defendants refused to provide them with their paystubs. The Court thus ruled that Plaintiffs made the requisite showing necessary to demonstrate that they and the proposed collective action members were similarly-situated for purposes of conditional certification. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion. Binder, et al. v. Brentlinger Enterprises , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194491 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 1, 2021). Plaintiff, an auto dealership employee, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, which the Court granted. Plaintiff alleged that he and other hourly, non-exempt employees were not paid correctly for all their hours worked because Defendant had a "company-wide policy of not compensating its employees for rest periods and/or meal periods" that were interrupted by required work duties.” Id. at *3. In support of his motion, Plaintiff offered his own declaration and time records. In his declaration, Plaintiff averred that he and other hourly, non-exempt employees were all subjected to Defendant’s policies, which: (i) failed to compensate them for rest breaks of 19 minutes or less; and (ii) failed to compensate for interrupted meal periods. Plaintiff also asserted that he "personally observed other porters and hourly technicians" being subjected to these alleged violations and that he and his co-workers complained about these practices. Id. at *8. The Court ruled that Plaintiff’s allegations were sufficient to make the requisite showing that he and other hourly paid employees were similarly-situated for purposes of conditional certification. Defendant argued that Plaintiff’s motion was insufficient because it did not identify which other employees were similarly-situated to Plaintiff. The Court, however, rejected Defendant’s argument. It found that at this stage of conditional certification, Plaintiff need not name specific individuals. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Branson, et al. v. Alliance Coal , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75707 (W.D. Ky. April 20, 2021) . Plaintiffs, a group of coal mine employees, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay for pre-shift and post-shift work time and for time spent donning and doffing protective equipment in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, which the Court granted. Plaintiffs sought conditional certification of a collective action consisting of “all individuals who work or have worked as coal miners at the Dokiti, Warrior/Cardinal, and River View mines between May 19, 2017 and the present." Id . at *13. Plaintiffs contended that all three mines required employees to arrive early and stay after their scheduled shifts so they could change into and out of their mining gear, that they had to be dressed and ready 15 minutes prior to their scheduled shift, and that they were not paid until the shift actually started. In support of the motion for