18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

144 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition coordinators who worked more than 40 hours in one or more workweeks at any time in the three years preceding the date of the grant of conditional certification; and (ii) hourly nurses at Aurora Manor who worked more than 40 hours in one or more workweeks at any time in the three years preceding the date of the grant of conditional certification. Plaintiff contended that Defendant Saber Healthcare Group operates 122 facilities, Defendant Saber Healthcare Holdings is a holdings company with "an ownership interest" in nursing facilities across the country, and has the same ownership as Saber Healthcare Group. Id . at *4. Defendants argued that only Defendant Aurora Manor had an employer relationship with Plaintiff. However, the Court noted that Defendants’ arguments went to the merits of Plaintiff’s claims, and were therefore not suitable to address at the first stage of conditional certification. The Court opined that as to the proposed MDS nurse collective action, Plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to show that MDS nurses across the Saber-affiliated facilities were similarly-situated. The Court reasoned that the limited discovery also supported a finding that potential collective actions members were similarly-situated, as all Defendant-affiliated facilities across the nation used the same MDS nurse and coordinator job descriptions drafted by Saber Healthcare Group, all MDS nurses had the same duties, used the same time tracking system, and were classified as exempt employees. For these reasons, the Court found that conditional certification was appropriate, and that the parties should conduct further discovery on the joint employer issue. As to conditional certification of all hourly nurses at the Aurora Manor facility, the Court ruled that Plaintiff was sufficiently similarly-situated to each nurse by the claim that Defendant Aurora Manor did not pay them for overtime work or for lunch breaks they did not take. The Court there granted conditional certification to both collective action groups. Larry, et al. v. Kelly Services , Case No. 20-CV-11481 (E.D. Mich. March 1, 2021). Plaintiff, a recruiter, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant misclassified her and others similarly-situated as exempt employees and thereby 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 sought conditional certification of a collective action consisting of all current and former salaried recruiters employed by Defendant over the previous three years. In support of her motion, Plaintiff submitted a declaration in which she averred that she and others were all subject to the same misclassification policy, were all paid on a salary basis, all worked over 40 hours in several workweeks, and were all not paid overtime compensation. Defendant argued that Plaintiff’s job title was not that of a recruiter, and that there were several job titles within the proposed collective action definition, all of which had different duties and responsibilities. The Court found that Plaintiff met the requisite burden necessary to establish and she and members of the proposed collective action were similarly-situated. The Court opined that Defendant’s contentions were more appropriately after the parties had completed discovery in the case. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Loomis, et al. v. Unum Group Corp., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91593 (E.D. Tenn. May 13, 2021). Plaintiff, an Disability Benefits Specialist (“DBS), filed a collective action alleging that Defendant misclassified DBSs as exempt employees and thereby failed to pay them overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, which the Court granted. In support of her motion for conditional certification, Plaintiff offered her own declaration and the declarations of eight other DBSs. The declarants stated that their primary job duty was "processing disability insurance claims in accordance with predetermined guidelines within specified timeframes." Id . at *3-4. The declarations all averred that their job duties included requesting and gathering medical and employment information, sharing information and documents with supervisors and other specialized staff to receive processing guidance, inputting information into Defendant’s computer system and into template approval or denial forms, reviewing claims against approval criteria and policies, and calling claimants to inform them of decisions, among other tasks. Id . at *4. Each asserted that he or she had little authority to make independent decisions and that they followed a specific set of policies and procedures when responding to claims. Finally, all of them stated that they regularly worked over 40 hours per workweek without being paid overtime compensation. Additionally, Plaintiff provided job descriptions for all positions included in the proposed collective action definition. Defendant asserted that the FLSA’s administrative exemption applied to the DBSs. The Court found that Plaintiffs’ declarations and job descriptions were sufficient to establish that Plaintiff was similarly-situated to potential opt-in Plaintiffs who worked as DBSs in the STD and LTD departments. Further, the Court determined that the job descriptions showed that Plaintiff was similarly-situated to DBSs in the IDI department, as they performed similar job duties. For these reasons, the Court ruled that the eight declarations and the job descriptions, taken together, showed Plaintiff was