18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

160 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition Perizes, et al. v. Dietitians At Home, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162555 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 7, 2021) . Plaintiff, a registered dietitian, 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 granted. Plaintiff alleged that: (i) Defendant subjected dietitians to the same hybrid "per unit" and hourly compensation scheme and other terms and conditions of employment; (ii) Defendant uniformly and improperly classified dietitians as exempt employees; and (iii) all dietitians performed substantially similar job duties. Id . at *9. In support of her motion, Plaintiff offered her own declaration and the declaration of Defendant’s Chief Financial Officer. Plaintiff averred that she and other registered dietitians were subjected to a common practice of being paid on a hybrid per unit and hourly basis, that they were not paid for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek at a rate of one-and-one-half times their regular rate, and that all registered dietitians shared the same primary job duty of providing Medical Nutrition Therapy. Defendant argued that since Plaintiff was the only registered nurse who submitted a declaration, Plaintiff failed to meet her burden for conditional certification. The Court held that Plaintiff provided sufficient evidence that she and potential members of her proposed collective action were subjected to the same unlawful policy. The Court determined that Plaintiff’s allegations and declaration both asserted that registered dietitians were all expected to perform the same primary duties and were all compensated on an hourly/by unit basis, and thus were victim of a common practice that violated the FLSA. Accordingly, the Court found that Plaintiff made the requisite showing at the conditional certification stage to demonstrate that she was similarly-situated to the members of the proposed collective action. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Piazza, et al. v. New Albertsons, LP , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20573 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 3, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of salaried assistant store directors (“ASDs”), filed a collective action alleging that Defendant misclassified them as exempt employees and thereby failed to pay 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 ASDs were not responsible for any tasks related to management of employees, and spent nearly all their time performing the same duties as non-exempt employees. Plaintiffs alleged that they routinely worked 50 to 60 hours per week and were not paid overtime compensation for hours worked over 40. Plaintiffs also contended that all ASDs performed the same non-managerial duties and worked the same general number of hours per week. Defendants asserted that Plaintiffs failed to make a factual showing that there was a common policy or plan at work that violated the law. Id . at *13. Defendants also argued that Plaintiffs were not similarly-situated to the membership of the proposed collective action. In support of the motion for conditional certification, Plaintiffs submitted four declarations in which they outlined conversations between the affiants and other ASDs who performed similar duties, and averred that they were required to perform non-management work yet were classified as exempt employees. The Court held that the declarations sufficiently demonstrated that Defendants had a common policy or practice to classify ASDs as exempt employees and thereby failed to pay them overtime compensation. The Court also determined that the collective action members were similarly-situated as they were all subject to the same conditions, all stores operated under the same policies and procedures, and all shared the same employee handbook. Further, the Court noted that all ASDs were salaried workers eligible for the same bonuses, each was required to work more than 45 hours per week, and all were classified as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA, Id . at *18. The Court found that Plaintiffs’ submissions were sufficient to establish that similarly-situated individuals existed. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Reed, et al. v. Methodist Health Services, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51146 (C.D. Ill. March 18, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of case managers, filed a collective action alleging that Defendants misclassified case managers as exempt employees and Failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, which the Magistrate Judge previously had recommended be granted. On Rule 72 review, the Court adopted the findings of the Magistrate Judge, and granted the motion. Plaintiffs sought conditional certification of a collective action consisting of all those employed as case managers or in similar job positions, and whose primary job responsibilities were to provide discharge planning or case management services over the previous three years. Id . at *2. The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiffs met their burden to make the required showing that case managers at the hospitals were similarly-situated and were subjected to a common policy or plan that violated the FLSA. The Magistrate Judge therefore ruled that all case manager were classified as exempt employees and not paid overtime compensation .The Court reviewed the