18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

140 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition eat their meals." Id . at *12. However, the Court explained that the record reflected that warehouse workers did not have to go through screenings to eat in Defendant’s breakrooms, and thus, workers were able to choose whether or not to undergo a screening. The Court also ruled that the proposed collective action definition was unascertainable, as there could be warehouse workers who went through security screenings for every meal period, for no meal periods, or for only some meal periods. The Court therefore held that determining the validity of a claim of collective action members would require an individualized analysis to determine whether a violation of the FLSA occurred. The Court also opined that since the record contained no evidence or documentation that Defendant had an auto-deduct policy, and Defendant presented evidence that it in fact had a policy requiring punching- in and punching-out for unpaid breaks, Plaintiffs were not similarly-situated based on any automatic deduction of the unpaid meal period. For these reasons, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Green, et al. v. Verita Telecommunications Corp. , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103012 (N.D. Ohio June 2, 2021). Plaintiff, an aerial lineman and underground cable layer, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiff contended that installers regularly worked over 40 hours in a workweek, but were paid on a piece-rate basis that failed to account for overtime hours. 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 current and former hourly employees who were employed by Defendant in the field who were not paid overtime compensation from December 31, 2017, to the present. Plaintiff specifically contended that he and others similarly-situated were not paid for work performed between scheduled start and stop times, or during lunch periods when they did not actually receive a break. Plaintiff estimated that he performed approximately five hours of unpaid work per week. In support of his motion, Plaintiff offered his own declaration as well as those of eight opt-in Plaintiffs. Plaintiff’s declaration averred that he was only paid for work performed between his scheduled start and stop times, was not compensated for work performed outside his scheduled shift or during his scheduled lunch, and that lunches were automatically deducted from his pay, regardless of whether or not he actually took a lunch. Id . at *3. Plaintiff also contended that he observed other employees being subject to this same timekeeping practice. The other declarations all asserted similar allegations, although the employees’ job titles varied. The Court found that Plaintiff satisfied the requisite burden required for conditional certification. The Court determined that Plaintiff’s declarations, along with the allegations within the complaint, were sufficient to show that he was similarly-situated to other members of the proposed collective action. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Hall, et al. v. Gannett Co. , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12216 (W.D. Ky. Jan. 22, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of call center employees, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay for time spent working prior to the beginning of their shifts, and therefore denied 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 collective ACTION consisting of all hourly-paid call-center employees subject to Defendant’s "adherence policy," which required them to "start and log-in to their computer, open multiple different computer programs, log-in to each program, read their emails, and ensure that each program is running correctly" before clocking in for their shifts. Id . at *6. In support of their motion, Plaintiffs submitted numerous affidavits and emails from Defendant’s managers that supported that they were similarly-situated and all subject to Defendant’s adherence policy. The Court thus held that Plaintiffs satisfied their burden to justify conditional certification of a collective action of Gannett hourly call-center employees. Defendant argued that the adherence policy did not actually force Plaintiffs or putative collective action members to work off-the-clock; any work done off-the-clock was de minimis ; and to the extent it happened, it was a policy violation. The Court, however, determined that Defendant’s argument went to the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims, and was therefore not appropriate to consider at the first stage of conditional certification. The Court reasoned that Plaintiffs’ 59 declarations from several different types of hourly call-center employees were sufficient to warrant conditional certification. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion. Hawkins, et al. v. Middle Tennessee Pizza, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97795 (M.D. Tenn. May 24, 2021). Plaintiff, a pizza delivery driver, filed a collective action alleging that Defendants failed to reimburse drivers for delivery related expenses and failed to pay them minimum wages in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiffs filed a