18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

158 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition the same policies and procedures and who performed off-the-clock work without being compensation. Defendant contented that there were several different job titles and responsibilities within the category of “call center employees” and therefore Plaintiff was not similarly-situated to the members of the proposed collective action. Id. at *6. The Court, however, found that at this stage of the litigation, Plaintiff only need provide evidence that her job was similar, not identical, to those in the proposed collective action. Further, the Court noted that Defendant’s other arguments disputing Plaintiff’s account of the work hours required went to the merits of the allegations, and where thereby not suitable to address at the conditional certification stage. The Court ruled had Plaintiff had made the necessary showing required by 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and it therefore granted the motion for conditional certification of a collective action. McColley, et al. v. Casey ’ s General Stores , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62548 (N.D. Ind. March 31, 2021). Plaintiff, a store manager, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant misclassified store managers 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. Plaintiff contended that store managers primarily performed manual, "associate-type" duties in excess of 40 hours a workweek, and that these duties did not involve the exercise of discretion or independent judgment "regarding matters of significance." Id . at *3. Further, Plaintiff asserted that these manual duties accounted for the vast majority of her time spent working in the store. In support of her motion for conditional certification, Plaintiff offered the declarations of 10 former store managers; deposition testimony from Defendant’s corporate representatives, Mr. Robert Ford (Vice President of Store Operations) and Ms. Cindi Summers (Senior Vice President of Human Resources); and Defendant’s work manuals, human resource guides, and articles describing policies related to Defendant’s compensation, planograms, promotions, and prices. Id . at *11. The declarations established that the potential collective action members: (i) worked as salaried store managers; (ii) regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week; (iii) were not paid extra overtime compensation for any hours worked in excess of 40 per week; and (iv) primarily performed non-managerial tasks. Id . at *13. The submitted materials substantiated Plaintiff’s allegations that the duties store managers performed were mostly associate-type manual work and nothing that required managers to set policies, make store goals, or develop any products or service efforts for the store. Further, the deposition testimony confirmed that all store managers had essentially the same duties, which mostly included manual labor in keeping the store clean and functioning to customers. The Court held that Plaintiff’s evidence was sufficient to establish that Plaintiff and the proposed collective action members were similarly-situated for purposes of conditional certification. Defendant submitted its own declarations in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion, all which refuted Plaintiff’s claims. The Court, however, declined to address the merits of Plaintiff’s claims at the conditional certification stage. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion. Palomar, et al. v. SMC Corp. Of America, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224155 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 27, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of sales trainees, filed a collective action alleging that Defendants failed to pay minimum wage for time spent undergoing a training program in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, which the Court granted. Plaintiffs asserted that Defendant had an employer-mandated training program, and failed to pay employees wages that were free and clear and not subject to a kickback for a period of 18 months after the training was completed. Specifically, Plaintiffs contended that as a condition of their employment, Defendant required that the employees attend a five-month training program at its training facility and sign agreements in which Plaintiffs acknowledged that Defendant retained the right to recover costs for training, accommodations, and relocation in the event the employee left their job during training or within 18 months after transferring to a branch location. Id . at *6. The Court ruled that Plaintiffs satisfied their modest burden of showing that there was a factual nexus connecting them to other potential Plaintiffs. In support of their motion, Plaintiffs submitted declarations attesting that all sales trainees were required to attend the training program, were non-exempt employees, were required to sign the same training agreement that outlined the "loan" scheme under which Defendant required employees to repay the costs associated with training, accommodations, and relocation should they quit within 18 months, were paid the same hourly wage during the training period, and during that training period they earned less than the $18,200 in training and accommodations costs that Defendant sought to recoup. Id . at *7. Defendant argued that its policy on the training program did not violated the FLSA. However, the Court reasoned that Defendant’s argument went to the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims, and therefore was not appropriate to consider at the conditional certification stage. The Court held that Plaintiffs made the requisite showing necessary to demonstrate that they were similarly-