18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

114 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition previous three years. The Court determined that although the class was relatively small, it was sufficiently numerous for purposes of Rule 23(a)’s requirements. The Court also determined that the question common to all class members was whether or not logistics coordinators were subject to the administrative exemption of the FLSA and the PMWA. Thus the Court held that commonality was met. The Court further opined that Plaintiff’s claims were typical to those of the class and all came from the same legal theory. The Court reasoned that Plaintiff was an adequate class representative and that Plaintiff’s counsel was well-versed in handing complex litigation matters. As to the Rule 23(b) requirements, the Court held that the common question of whether logistics coordinators were properly designated as exempt employees predominated over any other question such that the predominance requirement was met. Finally, as to superiority, the Court found that no other class members wanted to file a competing action, and that class adjudication would be superior to individual mini- trials. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23. Skaggs, et al. v. Gabriel Brothers, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14076 (M.D. Penn. Jan. 26, 2021). Plaintiff, a former assistant manager (“AM”), filed a collective action alleging that Defendant misclassified AMs as exempt from overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, which the Court denied. Plaintiff contended that she and other AMs regularly worked 50 to 60 hours per week without receiving overtime compensation. Plaintiff also asserted that between 80% and 90% of her work were tasks that store associates performed, and was not managerial in nature. In support of her motion, Plaintiff offered her own deposition testimony and testimony from several opt-in Plaintiffs. The testimony discussed the experiences working for Defendant and daily employment duties. The Court found that there were meaningful differences in the testimony as to work tasks that would require the Court to conduct individualized inquiries to determine whether the FLSA exemption provisions would apply. Id . at *34. Although Plaintiff testified that she performed certain job functions for which hourly associate employees were not responsible, other opt-in Plaintiffs testified as to different experiences. Some opt-in Plaintiffs performed mostly management work, some performed some management and some associate work, and some performed mostly associate work. The Court therefore held that Plaintiff failed to establish that she was similarly-situated to all AMs such that certification would be appropriate. The Court reasoned that the opt-in Plaintiffs all had varying levels of responsibility across different stores. The Court explained that typically when a collective action is based on the alleged misclassification of employees under the FLSA, individualized factual determinations are almost always present to ascertain whether an exemption is applicable to a given employee. Id . at *38-39. The Court determined that it would be required to conduct an examination of each opt-in Plaintiff’s duties and responsibilities to determine whether they would be exempt from the FLSA’s overtime provisions. For these reasons, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Then, et al. v. Great Arrow Builders, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104114 (W.D. Penn. June 4, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of construction employees, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant’s site allowance payment violated the FLSA. The parties stipulated to conditional certification of a collective action, and the Court granted the motion. The stipulation provided that the collective action included all current and former Union-Represented Hourly Craft Workers who worked for Defendant at any time from November 2018 to present." Id . at *2. The parties agreed that there was factual nexus between the manner in which Defendant’s alleged policy affected Plaintiff and putative collective action members, including that they were all Union-Represented Hourly Craft Workers of different titles, who received the site allowance payments pursuant to a collectively bargained agreement that covered each of them. Defendant also admitted that payment of a site allowance was common to all of its Union-Represented Hourly Craft Workers. Id . at *3. After its independent review of the record, the Court concluded that Plaintiff and the members of the proposed collective action were similarly-situated such that conditional certification was appropriate. The Court therefore granted conditional certification of a collective action. Wintjen, et al. v. Denny ’ s, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222676 (W.D. Penn. Nov. 18, 2021). Plaintiff, a former restaurant server, filed a class and collective action alleging that Defendant violated its minimum wage obligations under the FLSA and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (“PMWA”). Plaintiff claimed that Defendant’s compensation policies violated the minimum wage requirements: (i) by failing to notify its tipped servers that it would claim a tip credit; and (ii) by paying its tipped servers a sub-minimum wage while requiring those servers to perform side work. Plaintiff moved to certify her state law claims pursuant to Rule 23 and for