18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

90 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition collective action, which the Court denied. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant failed to pay for time spent traveling to and home from railroad locations and failed to pay for time spent traveling from one railroad location to another. First, in considering the similarly-situated standard, the Court found that Plaintiffs had sufficient factual similarities. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant did not compensate them for all of their travel time, that they had similar roles as laborers and operators, that they were routinely assigned to traveling jobs, and were not paid for travel time or only part of travel time. The Court also determined that Plaintiffs shared legal issues in that they were all subject to Defendant’s FLSA-imposed obligation to pay overtime and were not paid overtime compensation. The Court thus concluded that Plaintiffs were sufficiently similarly-situated to avoid decertification of the collective action. In further analysis of the motion, the Court turned to an ad hoc inquiry examining: (i) the disparity or similarity of factual and employment settings of the individual Plaintiffs; (ii) defenses available to Defendants that appeared to be individual to each Plaintiff; and (iii) fairness and procedural considerations weighing for or against collective action treatment. The Court opined that the similarities in factual and employment settings between Plaintiffs and the opt-in Plaintiffs outweighed any disparities, as all had similar work responsibilities as hourly railroad workers. Defendant contended that individualized defenses as to the amount of travel time, different alleged statements by their supervisors, and the varying nature of each job warranted decertification. The Court held, however, that these considerations went to the damages analysis and did not warrant decertification. Finally, addressing fairness and procedural considerations, the Court determined that allowing Plaintiff and the opt-in Plaintiffs to proceed in one group would allow for the more effective vindication of rights. Id . at *15. For these reasons, the Court denied Defendant’s motion for decertification of the collective action. Duran, et al. v. R&L Interior Renovations & Construction Corp., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200988 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2021). Plaintiff, a laborer, filed a collective action alleging that Defendants failed to pay minimum wage and 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 non-managerial assistants, laborers, and/or those in similar positions, who performed work for Defendants at any time during the relevant FLSA period." Id . at *3. In support of the motion, Plaintiff offered his own declaration and the declaration of one opt-in Plaintiff. The declarations averred that they regularly worked in excess of 40 hours each week and that they were paid a flat rate of $80 to $120 per day with no correlation to the number of hours actually worked. The declarations further asserted that all non-managerial employees were paid in the same manner, and they named the specific employees. Defendants argued that the declarations showed significant differences among the potential Plaintiffs, including the amount that each was paid and the particular tasks that each performed as a laborer. Id . at *6. The Court, however, noted that Plaintiff only needed to establish that he was similar to members of the proposed collective action, not identically situated. The Court found that Plaintiff made the requisite showing required to demonstrate that he and others similarly-situated were subject to Defendant’s common policy or plan in violation of the FLSA. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Emeterio, et al. v. A & P Restaurant Corp. , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5750 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2021). Plaintiff, a restaurant employee, filed a collective action alleging that Defendants failed to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, which the Court granted. Plaintiff offered his own affidavit outlining his allegations of minimum wage and overtime violations, which averred that he was aware that other restaurant employees were all subject to Defendants’ uniform policies that violated the FLSA. Upon review of the parties’ submissions, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification. The Court ruled that Plaintiff carried his burden for conditional certification by making the requisite factual showing that he and potential opt-in Plaintiffs were similarly-situated. Defendants’ primary arguments in opposition were that: (i) Plaintiff failed to show that Defendants’ two restaurant locations, Remedy Diner and Jax Inn Diner, should be treated as a single integrated enterprise for purposes of the FLSA; and (ii) that Plaintiff could not show that he was similarly-situated to either tipped employees at Remedy Diner or to employees at Jax Inn Diner. Id . at *2. The Court disagreed . It opined that the deposition of Defendants’ corporate designee, along with Plaintiff’s affidavit, established that there was a plausible basis to treat the two restaurants as a single integrated enterprise for purposes of the FLSA and that there were common issues of fact and law with respect to the payroll policies applied to both tipped and non-