18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 95 the same manner. The Court held that through their declarations, Plaintiffs made the requisite showing to demonstrate that they were similarly-situated to the proposed collective action members for purposes of conditional certification. The Court reasoned that the fact that there were three declarations, and not one standing alone, made a sufficient showing because the statements in the declarations corroborated one another regarding the allegations that Defendant maintained a uniform policy of not paying overtime. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Jiao, et al. v. Shang Qian , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183438 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of restaurant employees, filed a collective action alleging that Defendants failed to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation, and illegally retained tips in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, which the Court granted. Defendants did not oppose conditional certification, and therefore in analyzing the motion, the Court looked to Plaintiffs’ affidavits in support of their requested relief. Plaintiff Li worked as a waitress, cashier and cleaner, Plaintiff Yu worked as a barbecue assistant, Plaintiff Jiao worked as a fry wok cook, and Plaintiff Zhai worked as a barbecue assistant and miscellaneous kitchen worker. Plaintiffs all averred that Defendants had a policy and practice of failing to pay them minimum wages, failing to pay them overtime premiums, and/or illegally retaining their tips. Plaintiffs all also asserted that Defendants treated all kitchen and restaurant employees the same, and subjected them all to the same pay policies and procedures. Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ submissions, the Court found that Defendants’ current and former non- exempt employees employed at the restaurant Shang Qian were similarly-situated. The Court therefore granted Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Jin, et al. v. Shanghai Original, Inc., 990 F.3d 251 (2d Cir. 2021). Plaintiff, a kitchen employee, filed a class action alleging that Defendant failed to pay minimum wages in violation of the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”). The District Court previously had granted class certification on the NYLL claims and appointed class counsel. Five days before the class trial, the District Court sua sponte decertified the class based on class counsel’s inadequate representation, finding that class counsels’ plan to call only two class members as witnesses at the trial was the "significant intervening event" prompting decertification. Id . at 253. The District Court subsequently held a bench trial on Plaintiff’s individual claims, and entered judgement in his favor. Plaintiff appealed the District Court’s decertification order notwithstanding his victory on his individual claims. The Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling. John Troy and Troy Law, PLLC (together, "Troy Law") were appointed as class counsel. However, after the District Court certified the class, the District Court opined that Troy Law’s representation was less than desired. Following Troy Law’s allegations that opt-out forms had been fraudulently submitted, the District Court reopened discovery to allow class counsel to conduct depositions of three restaurant managers and 25 class members who opted-out. Troy Law conducted only two depositions of managers and none of employees. Class counsel thereafter submitted a witness list to the District Court with only two names, one of whom was paid hourly and therefore not subject to the same unlawful conduct, and the other who worked at a different restaurant location. In its subsequent order, the District Court determined the prejudice to class members from inadequate representation outweighed the prejudice to class members by decertifying the class so close to trial. Plaintiff contended that the District Court abused its discretion in decertifying the class because the "significant intervening event" identified – counsel’s plan to call only two class members as witnesses – did not justify decertification. Id . at 262. The Second Circuit reasoned that a significant intervening event was not required for a District Court to sua sponte decertify a class if it found the class no longer meets the requirements of Rule 23. The Second Circuit determined that the District Court acted within its discretion in decertifying the class on the ground that class counsel was no longer adequately representing the class. For these reasons, the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling. Julian, et al. v. MetLife, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164910 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of long-term disability claim specialists, filed a class and collective action alleging that Defendant misclassified claims specialists as exempt employees and thereby failed to pay them overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA and New York Labor Law (“NYLL”). The Court had previously granted Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of a collective action. After di, Defendant moved to decertify the collective action, and Plaintiffs moved to certify a class action of their state claims pursuant to Rule 23. The Court granted Defendant’s motion and denied Plaintiffs’ motion. As to the motion to decertify the collective action, the Court noted that Defendant submitted evidence that showed that the amount of independent discretion and judgment provided by each