18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 163 compensation in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, which the Court granted in part. Plaintiff sought conditional certification of a collective action of all care coordinator supervisors and care coordinators. Plaintiff contended that Defendant’s standard policy required hourly workers to clock-out once they reached 40 hours in a workweek such that it would not pay overtime compensation. Plaintiff asserted that she regularly worked 50 hours per week without receiving pay for the overtime hours. In support of her motion, Plaintiff submitted her own affidavit in which she averred that she knew other supervisors and care coordinators were subject to the same policy because as a supervisor, she “was responsible for enforcing this policy among the care coordinators,” and that she discussed pay with other supervisors and coordinators. Id . at *6-7. Plaintiff alleged that other care coordinator supervisors and care coordinators were paid in the same manner and that they would be interested in joining the action. Plaintiff also provided the affidavit of a care coordinator for Defendant, which also averred that Defendant required her to clock-out after reaching 40 hours in a workweek and did not pay for hours worked over 40, and that she was aware others were paid in the same manner subject to the same policy. Defendant asserted that Plaintiff failed to make a sufficient factual showing that care coordinator supervisors and care coordinators were similarly- situated. Defendant offered two declarations in support of its argument, which outlined the differences between the two positions. The Court found that based on the affidavits in support of Plaintiff’s motion, there was insufficient evidence to show that care coordinator supervisors and care coordinators were similarly-situated. The Court held that based on the declarations provided by Defendant, they did not have substantially the same duties, and Plaintiff failed to offer sufficient evidence in her affidavits regarding the duties of both positions. Defendant also argued that there was an inherent conflict of interest between care coordinator supervisors and care coordinators, because supervisors were "responsible for enforcing" Defendant’s policy regarding hours worked and overtime pay "among the care coordinators." Id . at *12. However, the Court ruled that Plaintiff met her lenient burden of establishing that she was similarly-situated to other care coordinator supervisors. The Court thus granted Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action limited to care coordinator supervisors. Fox, et al. v. TTec Services Corp. , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52925 (E.D. Ark. March 22, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of hourly-paid healthcare advocates, hourly-paid customer service representatives, and salaried supervisors at call centers in Arkansas, filed a class and collective action alleging that Defendant required that hourly-paid employees provide uncompensated overtime work and that salaried supervisors were misclassified as exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act (“AMWA”). Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, and the Court granted the motion. In support of their motion, Plaintiffs submitted their own declarations in which they asserted that they were required to arrive for their scheduled shifts 15 minutes prior to the start time in order to log-in to computer and telephone systems, and that they were not compensated for this time. Plaintiffs asserted that they were denied overtime compensation as this time pushed their weekly work hours to over 40 hours in a workweek. The Court found that the declarations sufficiently alleged that all members of the proposed collective action were subject to a common policy or plan of failing to pay hourly-paid healthcare advocates for all time spent working while not logged-in to Defendant’s computer software, including overtime. Defendant argued that Plaintiffs failed to identify a single decision, policy, or plan in violation of the FLSA. The Court rejected the argument. It found that the declarations sufficiently claimed that, based on their personal knowledge, hourly-paid healthcare advocates were required to work off-the-clock at the beginning and end of their shifts and at other times, including overtime, and that Defendant’s pay policies applied to all healthcare advocates. Id . at *11. The Court thus determined that Plaintiffs made the requisite showing to demonstrate that they were similarly-situated to the other members of the proposed collective action for purposes of conditional certification. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiffs’’ motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Fritz, et al. v. Corizon Health , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163455 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 30, 2021). Plaintiffs, of group of current and former nurses at a correctional institute, filed a class and collective action alleging that Defendants had a uniform, company-wide policy and practice of requiring nurses to perform various uncompensated pre- shift and post-shift activities upon entering and leaving correctional facilities in violation of the FLSA and state wage & hour laws. The Court previously had granted Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for class certification of their state law claims pursuant to Rule 23, and the Court granted the motion. The Court found that the class was sufficiently numerous at over 200 nurses.