18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

184 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition due to the relatively small recoveries for each class member and that class-wide resolution would advance efficiency and economy. Accordingly, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Randall, et al. v. Integrated Community Services, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107424 (W.D. Wash. June 8, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of cable technicians, filed a collective action alleging that Defendants failed to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, which the Court granted. Plaintiffs asserted that Defendants underreported or refused to track technicians’ hours worked before and after shifts, during meal periods, and for other time worked "off the clock." Id . at *3-4. Plaintiffs further contended that Defendants instructed technicians to reduce their hours and to report fewer hours than were actually worked, and that Defendants changed Plaintiffs’ time records. In support of their motion, Plaintiffs offered their own declarations in which they described their working experiences and that they were aware that all technicians were paid under the same standard policies and procedures. Plaintiffs further attested that the pressure to work extended hours forced technicians to frequently eat while driving to the next job while still reporting 30-minute meal breaks even when the technician did not take a break. Plaintiffs also averred that Defendants had a policy and practice of deleting and altering job codes as well as pressuring technicians to omit code entries in order to reduce compensation. Finally, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant Comcast was a joint employer of the technicians and used ICS to shield itself from liability. Id . at *5. Defendants did not oppose conditional certification. In undertaking an independent review and analysis of Plaintiffs’ motion, the Court determined that Plaintiffs’ declarations along with the allegations in the complaint were sufficient to find that Plaintiffs were similarly-situated to the membership of the proposed collective action. The Court therefore granted Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Rojas, et al. v. VMS Data LLC, Case No. 21-CV-220 (D. Ariz. June 29, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of current and former inside sales representatives, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant misclassified sales representatives as exempt employees and thereby failed to pay them overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, and the Court granted the motion. Plaintiffs sought conditional certification of a collective action consisting of all current and former inside sales representatives over the previous three years. Plaintiffs contended that they all had the same job duties and requirements, and that they were all subject to Defendant’s alleged misclassification as exempt employees. The Court found that Plaintiffs made the requisite showing necessary to demonstrate that they were similarly- situated to the members of the proposed collective action. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Russo, et al. v. Joamar, Inc. , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45289 (C.D. Cal. March 8, 2021). Plaintiff, an exotic dancer, filed a collective action alleging that Defendants misclassified dancers as independent contractors and thereby failed to pay them overtime compensation and minimum wages 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 dancers who worked at Defendants’ Candy Cat Too club over the previous three years. Plaintiff contended that dancers were not paid any wages, were required to contribute to an illegal tip-pool, and were not provided with adequate wage statements. Plaintiff further asserted that Defendants were actually the dancers’ employer because they: (i) exercised significant operational control over dancers; (ii) set prices for all VIP performances; (iii) set the daily cover charge for customers to enter the facility; (iv) would tell dancers when and on what days they could work; (v) controlled the music and means by which dancers could perform; (vi) had authority to suspend, fine, fire, or otherwise discipline dancers; (vii) controlled hiring decisions; (viii) and retained the majority of the profits from the integral job duties dancers provided the club. Defendant also maintained appearance standards to which dancers had to comply. Plaintiff submitted her own declaration and the declaration of an opt-in Plaintiff, both of which outlined the allegations in the complaint and stated that all other dancers allegedly were subject to the same control and rules. The Court determined that Plaintiff made a sufficient showing that she was similarly-situated to all current and former dancers who worked at Candy Cat Too during the past three years. The Court explained that the crux of the claims was that Defendants misclassified Plaintiff and other dancers as independent contractors rather than employees and, accordingly, that Defendants’ treatment and compensation of the dancers violated the FLSA. The Court concluded that all potential collective action members were working in the same role and in the same location as Plaintiff. Further the declarations provided by Plaintiff and the allegations in the complaint supported a finding