18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 139 individualized considerations showed that the putative collective action members were not similarly-situated; and (iv) the proposed collective action was unmanageable. The Court rejected each of the arguments. First, the Court opined that Plaintiffs did allege a national practice connecting the members of the proposed collective action by asserting that Defendant required them to be responsible for work-related tasks during unpaid meal periods, which resulted in unpaid overtime work. Id . at *9. Second, the Court reasoned that Defendant’s formal written policies prohibiting meal period interruptions or off-the-clock work did not prevent conditional certification at this stage of the litigation. The Court determined that the similarity of each collective action member could be more fully examined following discovery, Finally, the Court held that the manageability argument was also premature. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Gambrell, et al. v. Rumpke Transportation Co. , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186362 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 29, 2021). Plaintiff, a welder, 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 asserted that Defendant had a company-wide policy in which welders were required to clock- out for meals breaks for 30-minutes each day, but were regularly required to work during the meal break without compensation. Plaintiff also alleged that if he did not clock-out for a meal break because he was working, Defendant manually modified the time to exclude the 30-minute meal break. Plaintiff sought conditional certification of a collective action consisting of all welders scheduled to work 40 hours or more per week over the previous three years. In support of the motion, Plaintiff offered his own declaration and the declarations of three other welders. The declarations averred they were regularly interrupted during meal breaks in order to perform job duties and that they personally observed others who were also denied uninterrupted meal breaks. Defendant argued that: (i) Plaintiff was not similarly-situated to the members of the proposed collective action because Plaintiff asserted multiple theories of alleged violations; (ii) there was not a company-wide policy with respect to meal breaks; and (iii) working hours, conditions, and policies at its nine locations were different from one another so that welders at one location are not similarly-situated to the welders at another location. The Court noted that proceeding on multiple theories of an alleged violation did not necessarily bar conditional certification, when, as here, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant had violated the FLSA by failing to pay welders for work performed during their 30-minute meal break, and the theory supporting the FLSA violation was the same for both those who clocked out for breaks and those who did not. The Court found that Plaintiff was similarly-situated to the members of the proposed collective action. The Court held that Plaintiff’s submissions were sufficient to establish that Defendant had a common policy and operation for hourly welders at all of its locations, and that Plaintiff was similarly-situated to the other members of the proposed collective action for purposes of conditional certification. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion. Gorie, et al. v. Amazon.Com Services, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180412 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 22, 2021). Plaintiff, a fulfillment center employee, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay for time spent undergoing security screenings before lunch breaks which led to overtime violations of the FLSA. Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, which the Court denied. Plaintiff sought conditional certification of a collective action consisting of all hourly workers who went through security screenings prior to 30-minute unpaid meal periods at any period of time between June 24, 2017 and the present. Id . at *3. Plaintiff submitted her own declaration plus the declarations of 40 other employees, which were all nearly identical. Plaintiff averred that she was a "non-exempt warehouse worker" and that she was not paid for work performed during her 30-minute meal period, which was "automatically deducted . . . from [her] pay each day." Id . at *4. Plaintiff also stated that the time spent undergoing the checks was “substantial.” Id . Defendant submitted several declarations in connection with its opposition to conditional certification, which asserted that Defendant did not require employees to go through security screening during their unpaid meal breaks, as they could choose to eat inside the secured area in an internal breakroom. Defendant also stated that it did not automatically deduct 30 minutes for unpaid meal breaks, but had a written policy which required all non-exempt, hourly employees to punch-in and punch-out for their unpaid meal breaks, and the unpaid time was based on their own punches. Id . at *5. Defendant also argued that Plaintiff offered only "boilerplate" declarations with "conclusory allegations" that failed to identify "a policy or practice that is common, much less one that is illegal" such that it would give rise to liability under the FLSA. Id . at *11. The Court observed that Plaintiff’s argument was essentially that warehouse workers were required to exit the secured area through a security screening before being "able to