18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

98 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition Plaintiffs also contended that Defendants’ timekeeping equipment was inaccurate and that their records were manipulated. Id . at *13. The Court found that Plaintiffs met their requisite burden at the conditional certification stage under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and it granted Plaintiffs’ motion as to their FLSA claims . . . As to class certification of the state law claims, the Court found that Plaintiffs met the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b). The Court noted that whether Defendants maintained policies of failing to compensate Plaintiffs for all overtime hours worked were common questions for all members of the proposed class and predominated over any individual damages assessments, which could be addressed by class-wide proof. The Court concluded that a class action would be the superior method of adjudication of the state law claims because the potential class members were aggrieved by the same policy, the damages suffered were small in relation to the expense and burden of individual litigation, and many potential class members were still employed by Defendants. Id . at *33. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motions for class certification and for conditional certification of a collective action. Lin, et al. v. JD Produce Maspeth, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214855 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2021). Plaintiff, a delivery driver, filed a collective action alleging that Defendants 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 in part. Plaintiff sought conditional certification of a collective action consisting of all non-exempt non-managerial employees over the previous three years. In support of his motion, Plaintiff offered his own declaration and the declaration of another delivery driver. The declarants asserted that they were paid a flat weekly-rate and not paid overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The declarants also averred that they were aware of other employees who also received a flat weekly-rate and who worked overtime hours without compensation. The Court concluded that Plaintiff had provided sufficient information to find that Defendants’ drivers worked similar shifts for comparable pay, and were paid a flat rate regardless of hours worked, in possible contravention of the FLSA’s overtime provisions. Id . at *21. The Court thus held that Plaintiff made the requisite showing required to demonstrate that he was similarly-situated to other drivers for purposes of conditional certification. However, the Court determined that Plaintiff failed to make that showing for all non- exempt employees. For these reasons, the Court granted in part Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Liz, et al. v. 5 Tellers Associates, L.P., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63800 (E.D.N.Y. April 1, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of building superintendents, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant 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 contended that they regularly worked over 40 hours per workweek, were paid a weekly rate of between $340 and $560, and were not paid overtime compensation. In support of their motion, Plaintiffs offered five declarations that outlined their weekly pay and their hours worked each week. Plaintiffs contended that they worked an average of 55 to 70 hours per week for the same weekly rate and without receiving overtime. Plaintiffs also averred that they approached management to complain about the pay policy violations, and nothing was done. In response, Defendant filed 14 declarations from other building superintendents stating that they were not subject to the wage violations alleged by Plaintiffs. The Court declined to consider Defendant’s factual arguments at the conditional certification stage. The Court found that Plaintiffs’ offered declarations that contended that they all had the same job requirements, were paid in the same manner, and reported to the same management, such that they established they were similarly-situated. The Court opined that the declarations were sufficient to demonstrate a factual nexus as to the wage & hour violations experienced by superintendents, because all superintendents who worked in different buildings managed by Defendant experienced the violations. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Lu, et al. v. Diamond Nail Salon, LLC , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114288 (D. Conn. June 18, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of nail technicians, massage employees, and van drivers, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay them minimum wages and overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, which the Court granted in part. Plaintiffs sought conditional certification of a collective action consisting of all hourly non-exempt employees. In support of their motion, Plaintiffs submitted their own declarations in which they averred that they were paid a flat-rate of $50 to $60 per day and that they regularly worked over 40 hours per workweek. Plaintiffs further alleged that they were aware