18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

152 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition drive resolution of the lawsuit. The Court concluded that factual and legal questions relating to liability were common to the Ohio-based class and predominated over any individual questions. Finally, the Court ruled that a class action would be the superior method of adjudicating Plaintiffs’ state law claims. In addition to common issues predominating, the Court held that the wages at issue on the individual class member level were likely to be relatively small, thus there was a strong interest in prosecuting as a class action. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Thompson, et al. v. Menorah Park Center For Senior Living Bet Moshav Zekenim Hadati , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21127 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 4, 2021). Plaintiff, a nurse, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay for all hours worked and failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification of collective action, which the Court granted. Plaintiff sought conditional certification of a collective action consisting of all former and current hourly registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, and nursing assistants employed by Defendant during any period of time between January 11, 2015 and the present. Id . at *1-2. In support of her motion, Plaintiff offered her own declaration and the declarations of two opt-in Plaintiffs. The declarations asserted that they were required to regularly perform work off-the-clock, including paperwork, charting, and other administrative tasks, all without being compensated. The declarations also established that all hourly non-exempt nurses were subject to the same policies and procedures and were paid in the same manner. Defendant argued that Plaintiff and the opt-in Plaintiffs were not similarly-situated to the members of the proposed collective action, as they were mostly part-time employees and had not worked for Defendant in over three years. The Court found that Plaintiff met the requisite standard required for conditional certification. The Court opined that Plaintiff sufficiently alleged that she and others worked overtime hours and were not compensated for the work. The Court reasoned that any arguments Defendant put forth went to the merits of Plaintiff’s claims and were therefore not suitable for consideration at the conditional certification stage. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Ward, et al. v. Guidant Global Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78251 (E.D. Mich. April 23, 2021). Plaintiff, an hourly employee, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, which the Court denied. Plaintiff sought conditional; certification of a nationwide collective action of all straight-time employees who were paid on an hourly basis in any position. Plaintiff contended that Defendant had a uniform policy of paying all straight-time employees the same hourly rate for all hours, including hours worked over 40 in a workweek. In support of his motion, Plaintiff offered his own declaration in which he asserted that Defendant paid him the same $67 hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in one workweek. In addition to describing his own experience, Plaintiff averred that he had knowledge that as to other hourly employees and supervisors, he overtime pay practice was widespread among hourly employees. The Court, however, found that Plaintiff’s sole declaration was insufficient to justify conditional certification. The Court determined that at the initial conditional certification stage, Plaintiff must demonstrate that his position is similar to those held by putative collective action members. The Court reasoned that Plaintiffs’ submissions could not justify conditional certification of a nationwide collective action spanning many different job titles and responsibilities. The Court ruled that while Plaintiff need not provide evidence from individuals who worked for every customer or at every location, he was required to offer evidence to supplement his own allegations as a single employee. For these reasons, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification without prejudice. Waters, et al. v. Pizza To You, LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11743 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 22, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of pizza delivery drivers, filed a class and collective action alleging that Defendants failed to properly reimburse Plaintiffs for their vehicle expenses in violation of the FLSA, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, and Ohio wage & hour laws. Defendants operated a number of pizza franchises in Ohio and reimbursed their delivery drivers at a per-delivery rate of $1 (which they switched to $1.25 in July 2019). According to Plaintiffs, each delivery required driving between 6.5 to 10 miles, which allegedly rendered Defendants’ reimbursement payments insufficient to cover Plaintiffs’ vehicle expenses. Plaintiffs further claimed that, because Defendants paid all delivery drivers minimum wages, any under-reimbursed expenses resulted in minimum wage violations under the FLSA. Id. at *6-7. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of an FLSA collective action in March 2020, and Plaintiffs subsequently moved to certify a class action under Rule 23 on the Ohio