18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

148 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition employees clocked-in or out a few minutes late or early in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, which the Court denied. Plaintiff submitted his own declaration with his motion for conditional certification and declarations from three other employees. The declarations were largely identical and all averred that they "and other hourly employees like me were required to come into work early to attend daily pre-shift meetings lasting 15 to 20 minutes" and "to put on our personal protective gear, including Kevlar sleeves, before our shift started." Id . at *5. The declarations also stated that employees "cannot start our shift or do the jobs we were hired to do without first attending the meetings to get work assignments or without putting on our protective gear.” Id . at *5-6. The Court determined that Plaintiff failed to meet his burden for conditional certification of a collective action on all three violations alleged. The Court held that any violations of donning and doffing would vary by individual job titles, duties, and equipment required. The Court opined that Plaintiff failed to allege that all members of the proposed collective action were subject to a common policy regarding the protective gear. The Court further ruled that Plaintiff failed to show that he and other hourly employees were subject to a common policy regarding the unpaid pre-shift employment meetings. Plaintiff’s only proof of such a policy as the nearly identical declarations of four employees with different job titles at different locations stating they are required to attend pre-shift meetings for which they were not paid. Id . at *17. The Court concluded that the vague and conclusory allegations were not sufficient evidence of a company-wide policy of requiring attendance for unpaid, pre-shift meetings. Finally, the Court determined that Plaintiff failed to meet the requisite burden in showing a company-wide policy of 15-minute time-punch deductions. Defendant maintained that no such policy existed and Plaintiff again only provided vague allegations insufficient to establish that there was a policy which applied to all hourly employees. The Court therefore held that Plaintiff failed to establish that he was similarly-situated to the proposed collective. Accordingly, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Pryke, et al. v. First Solar, Inc. , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208794 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 29, 2021). Plaintiff, a former manufacturing employee, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay the correct overtime compensation rate 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 Defendant’s hourly, non-exempt manufacturing employees who received a bonus or shift premium. Plaintiff alleged that all hourly manufacturing employees received a "shift differential" whenever they agreed to work 12- hour shifts. Id . at *1-2. Manufacturing employees also received an annual bonus if eligible. Plaintiff contended that the shift differential and the bonus amounts were not included in Defendant’s computation of employees’ overtime pay. Id. at *2. In support of her motion, Plaintiff submitted several declarations outlining the allegations in the complaint. Plaintiff also provided her offer letter and Defendant’s policies in support of her case theories. Defendant argued that Plaintiff could not establish that she was similarly-situated to the members of the proposed collective action because she was no longer employed with Defendant. Defendant also asserted that Plaintiff failed to show that the overtime calculation was common to all hourly employees on a nationwide basis and that they were similarly-situated with regard to the failure to include shift differential and bonuses in calculating overtime compensation. The Court rejected Defendant’s arguments. The Court reasoned that the fact that Plaintiff was no longer employed with Defendant was immaterial. The Court further explained that in submitting Defendant’s offer letter and policies, Plaintiff established that the conditions that formed the gravamen of her complaint were common to all hourly manufacturing employees on a company-wide basis. Id . at *5. The Court determined that Plaintiff made the requisite showing necessary to demonstrate that she was similarly-situated to the members of the proposed collective action. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Rapp, et al. v. Forest City Technologies, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113265 (N.D. Ohio June 17, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of hourly manufacturing workers, filed a class and collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay for all hours worked in violation of the FLSA and state wage & hour laws. Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, and for class certification pursuant to Rule 23, which the Court granted. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant maintained an electronic timekeeping system that automatically rounded to the nearest quarter hour and that Defendant edited the system “to round against the employee.” Id. at *11. Plaintiffs further asserted that Defendant unlawfully destroyed manual records of handwritten timesheets; did not accurately compensate employees for working overtime by failing to include shift deferential payments in calculations of employees’ regular rate of pay; and did not include “additional pay” payments in calculating