18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 137 false. The Court noted that it would not consider arguments going to the merits of Plaintiff’s claims at the conditional certification stage of the litigation. The Court, however, agreed with Defendant’s contention that the declarations only asserted violations relative to employees who were employed in the salt bath division. Accordingly, the Court granted in part Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Dill, et al. v. Drake-State Air, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14076 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 25, 2021). Plaintiff, an installer, 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 contended that he and other installers spent an average of four hours of uncompensated time each week driving back to Defendant’s facility from customer locations at the end of the workday. Id . at *4. Plaintiff also asserted that he and other installers averaged an additional two hours of uncompensated work per week performing tasks at Defendant’s facility upon prior to driving to worksites and after returning at the end of the day. Id . Defendant did not opposed Plaintiff’s request for conditional certification. The Court undertook its own independent analysis of Plaintiff’s motion pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). It found that Plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated that he and other installers were similarly-situated. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Dionysius, et al. v. Hankook Tire Manufacturing Tennessee, LP , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176363 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 16, 2021). Plaintiff, a maintenance employee, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant failed to properly paid for travel time and did not pay all overtime compensation due in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, which the Court granted. Plaintiff sought conditional certification of a collective action consisting of all maintenance and production employees during the relevant time period. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant had a standard policy requiring Plaintiff and other similarly-situated persons to perform work off-the-clock, including donning and doffing protective gear outside of their scheduled hours without compensation and to provide additional assistance outside of their scheduled hours without compensation. In support of his motion, Plaintiff submitted his own declaration and the declarations of two other maintenance employees and two production employees. The declarations averred that: (i) they were required to report to work 15 minutes prior to the start of their shifts to attend “pass down” meetings from the previous shift; (ii) they were required to stay 15 minutes after their shifts to hold “pass down” meetings for the next shift of employees; (iii) they were regularly required to come in on weekends or days off without receiving overtime compensation; and (iv) if they were to revise their timesheets to reflect the extra time worked, Defendant would either change the timesheet or only pay straight time, rather than overtime compensation, for the work. Id. at *7. Defendant argued that the maintenance and production positions were entirely different positions and therefore Plaintiff was not similarly-situated to the membership of the proposed collective action. Defendant asserted that the employees had different protective gear, worked in different locations, had different managers, and differing meeting requirements. The Court rejected Defendant’s arguments. It found that at the conditional certification stage, Plaintiff only needed to provide evidence that his position was similar, not identical, to the positions held by the proposed collective action members. The Court determined that the declarations provided evidence that the proposed collective action members were all subject to Defendant’s policies and procedures that were alleged to violate the FLSA. The Court ruled that at this stage of conditional certification, Plaintiff met his burden to show that he was similarly-situated to the proposed collective action members. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Ealy-Simon, et al. v. Change Healthcare Operations LLC, Case No. 20-CV-521 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 22, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of call center Patient Service Representatives (“PSRs”), filed a collective action alleging that Defendant 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 granted. Plaintiffs sought conditional certification of a collective action consisting of all PSRs at Defendant’s facilities. In support of their motion, Plaintiffs offered four declarations outlining their experiences as PSRs. Plaintiffs contended that PSRs were required to perform compensable work tasks before and after their shifts and during meal periods, including turning on their computers, and launching the computer networks, software programs, applications and phone systems required to take calls. Plaintiffs asserted that the startup and log-in process typically took 10 to 20 minutes during which they were not paid. Plaintiffs also contended that they had a 30-minute meal period each shift, but had to end their meal period early in order to unlock their computers and log-in to the needed programs, which took around