18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

134 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition Bryant, et al. v. North Coast Natural Solutions, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173745 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 14, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of employees, filed a collective action alleging that Defendants failed to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation 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 two groups of workers, including: (i) all current and former employees of Defendants who were classified as salaried employees for the Collinwood Hemp Venture Employers as executive-level employees in Ohio in any workweek in the past three years; and (ii) all current and former employees of Defendants who were classified as hourly employees for the Collinwood Hemp Venture Employers as manufacturing workers (or an equivalent position) in Ohio in any workweek in the past three years. Id . at *3. In support of their motion, Plaintiffs submitted declarations from several employees from each group. The declarants explained their employment status as either hourly or salaried workers, their employment term, their lack of compensation and their understanding that no other similarly-situated employees were ever paid by Defendants. Id . Plaintiffs also provided opt-in consent forms from 13 other employees who wished to join the lawsuit. The Court held that Plaintiffs sufficiently established that they were similarly-situated to the proposed collectives. The Court further reasoned that Plaintiffs’ evidence was sufficient to establish that all employees were subject to the same allegedly illegal policies and procedures. The Court therefore determined that collective action treatment was appropriate for both proposed groups, and granted Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification. Buckley, et al. v. Rehab America, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127323 (M.D. Tenn. July 14, 2021). Plaintiffs, an occupational therapist assistant and a physical therapist assistant, 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. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant had unrealistic expectations regarding how much work could be accomplished within a 40 hour workweek and therefore Plaintiffs ended up actually working a large number of overtime hours without receiving overtime compensation. Plaintiffs submitted their own declarations in support of their motion, which averred that all assistants were subject to the same policies and procedures and were expected to do the same unrealistic amount of work. Defendant did not oppose conditional certification of a collective action consisting of all therapy assistants over the previous three years. In undertaking an independent analysis of Plaintiffs’ motion, the Court found that Plaintiffs met the burden required for conditional certification. The Court ruled that Plaintiffs were sufficiently similarly-situated, and therefore it granted Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Butler, et al. v. Adient US, LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126886 (N.D. Ohio July 8, 2021). Plaintiff, an hourly non-exempt manufacturing employee, 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 in part. Plaintiff alleged that she and other employees frequently worked over 40 hours per week without additional compensation. Plaintiff sought conditional certification of a nationwide collective action of all hourly manufacturing employees. Defendant argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction over any claims brought by non-residents. The Court agreed that it lacked personal jurisdiction over non-resident employees, and therefore, it could not grant conditional certification to a nationwide collective action. The Court thus looked only to employees located in Defendant’s two Ohio-based locations in Northwood and Greenfield. In support of her motion, Plaintiff attached a number of declarations from opt-in Plaintiffs, including three declarations from employees who work in Defendant’s Northwood facility. Plaintiff did not submit any declarations from Greenfield employees. The declarants all asserted that Defendant required that they perform unpaid work prior to their scheduled start and stop times. Id . at *7. Defendant argued only those employed in the Northwood facility could be considered similarly-situated for purposes of conditional certification because the Greenfield facility manufactures different items and was therefore subject to different timekeeping practices, different work conditions, and entirely different job duties. Plaintiff argued that Defendant’s arguments went to the merits of Plaintiff’s claims and were thus inappropriate to consider at the conditional certification stage. The Court determined that Plaintiff failed to make the modest factual showing necessary to demonstrate that Greenfield employees were similarly-situated. The Court noted that none of the declarations or allegations in the complaint asserted any knowledge of Defendant’s practices inside the Greenfield facility. However, the Court found that Plaintiff’s allegation and declarations were sufficient to grant conditional certification of a collective action consisting of Northwood manufacturing employees. Accordingly, the Court granted in part Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action.