18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

116 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition in fact, similarly-situated as to their FLSA claims against the Gali Defendants, and that an FLSA collective action was an appropriate means of prosecuting their FLSA claims. Id . at *6. The Court concluded that Plaintiffs demonstrated by payroll documents and declarations from the opt-in Plaintiffs that the collective representatives and other members of the collective action were similarly-situated because they were all employed by Gali as janitorial staff, and they were all deprived of pay, including the FLSA-mandated minimum wage, for approximately four weeks before Gali closed. Id. at *7. Accordingly, the Court granted final certification of the collective action containing 330 opt-in members as to the Gali Defendants. Cockman, et al. v. Assignment Desk Works LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84268 (D.S.C. May 3, 2021). Plaintiff, a production coordinator (“PC”), filed a collective action alleging that Defendants misclassified her and other production coordinators as exempt employees and thereby failed to pay them overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, which the Court granted. In support of her motion, Plaintiff offered her own declaration and the declaration of an opt-in Plaintiff. Based on that submission, the Court found that Plaintiff met the required showing for conditional certification of a collective action. Defendants did not contest that all PCs were subject to the same overtime pay policy and that all PCs were classified as "exempt." Nor did Defendants contest that PCs were required to be "on-call" after work hours and on weekends, and that PCs regularly worked more than 40 hours per week without overtime compensation. Id . at *19. The Court reasoned the merits of the action centered upon whether Defendants’ classification of PCs as exempt from overtime pay was unlawful under the FLSA, and therefore all PCs were "similarly-situated" for purposes of a FLSA collective action. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Edwards, et al. v. Optima Health Plan , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59724 (E.D. Va. March 29, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of care management employees, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant misclassified them and others similarly-situated 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, which the Court granted in part. Plaintiffs sought conditional certification of a collective action consisting of all salary paid care management employees over the prior three years. Plaintiffs described "Care Management Employees" as "the employees that actually produce the managed care services that Defendant provides to its customers." Id . at *6. Plaintiffs contended that all care management employees’ duties were non-managerial in nature, and consisted of primarily data entry, care coordination, and plan education, but no clinical care. Plaintiffs argued that all of the care management employees were similarly-situated because they did not exercise discretion or provide care to members, and only applied Defendant’s policies without question, and thus were misclassified as exempt employees. Defendant asserted that Plaintiffs were not similarly-situated as they had different job duties and job titles. In support of their motion Plaintiffs offered their own declarations in which they described their job duties, Defendant’s classification of them as exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA, and that they were aware of others at the company subject to the same policies and procedures. In response, Defendant filed detailed declarations explaining the role of each type of care management employee and the differences in each job description and duties. The Court concluded that based on the parties’ briefs and declarations, Plaintiffs met their burden to establish that they were similarly-situated to the members of the proposed collective action. The Court noted that although the contents of Plaintiffs’ declarations were very broad, they were sufficient in asserting that they were all subject to Defendant’s policy classifying them as exempt employees. The Court opined that although Defendant’s declarations outlined differences in the job duties between different types of care management employees, they did not appear to contest that many of these putative collective action members have been classified as exempt from the FLSA. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Esedebe, et al. v. Circle 2, Inc., 2 021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12565 (E.D. Va. Jan. 22, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of dancers and managers in an adult entertainment establishment, filed a collective action alleging that Defendants failed to pay all wages due in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, which the Court granted. Plaintiffs asserted that the dancers were not paid any wages and were only compensated based on tips earned and sales made. Further, Defendants supposedly determined what music they danced to, how they dressed, what shoes they wore, how they interacted with customers, and the amount charged for dances. Id . at *3. Plaintiffs contended that they regularly worked over 40 hours in a