18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

192 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition conditional certification stage. The Court thus found that Plaintiffs meet their burden for conditional certification. However, the Court ruled that the collective action as proposed was overbroad, as Plaintiffs failed to make any showing that Defendants subjected non-New Mexico servers to a single policy, decision, or plan. The Court therefore granted Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification, but limited the collective action to New Mexico- based servers. Jackson, et al. v. Powersat Communications USA Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132052 (D. N.Mex. July 14, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of field technicians, filed a collective action alleging that Defendants 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 alleged that Defendants paid a day rate and did not compensate them for overtime hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek. In support of their motion, Plaintiffs offered their own declarations that averred that they all performed similar (if not identical) job duties, were compensated in the same or similar manner, were subject to the same company-wide policy, and all suffered a common injury as a result of Defendants’ company-wide violation of the FLSA. Id. at *3. In addition, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants’ use of job tickets to determine the number of hours worked by Field Technicians failed to accurately track all hours worked and that the policy and practice led to violations of FLSA’s overtime requirements. Id. at *3-4. Defendants contended that Plaintiffs failed to identify a common unlawful policy or plan in violation of the FLSA, and that proceeding as a collective action would not serve the purposes of judicial efficiency. The Court found that Plaintiffs’ allegations that they and the members of the proposed collective action had identical job titles, responsibilities, and work schedules, and a common policy of classification and pay for all field technicians. Id . at *10. The Court held that Plaintiffs’ allegations were sufficient to justify conditional certification. Defendants argued that Plaintiffs failed to provide the amounts of or basis for the overtime hours, in the form time records or paystubs, and that Plaintiffs relied on hearsay assertions about working overtime made to them by other employees. Id. The Court declined to address Defendants’ assertions on the grounds that they went to the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims and were more suitable to consider after discovery. The Court further reasoned that the question or whether the day rate complied with the FLSA was a question that could be answered as to all field technicians and therefore a collective action would promote the interests of judicial economy. Accordingly, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Kenney, et al. v. Helix, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85636 (D. Colo. May 5, 2021). Plaintiff, an armed security guard, filed a collective action alleging that he and other employees were misclassified as exempt employees and denied overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, which the Court granted. The parties disputed the notice form that would be sent to potential opt-in Plaintiffs. After revision of the notice, the parties jointly moved for approval of the notice and consent forms and email and text messages to opt-in Plaintiffs. Upon its independent review of Plaintiffs’ motion, the Court found that the proposed forms of notice were fair and accurate and no alterations to said documents were necessary. The Court also ruled that Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification should be granted under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Lindsay, et al. v. Cutters Wireline Services , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59258 (D. Colo. March 29, 2021). Plaintiff, a wireline operator, filed a class and collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA and breached its contracts with employees who were misclassified as exempt. Plaintiff previously had filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23, which the Court denied on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to meet the commonality and typicality requirements. After discovery, Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for class certification. Plaintiff argued that operators’ bonuses were not factored in to the overtime rate and Defendant thereby failed to pay the entire overtime amount owed. Plaintiff further alleged that Defendant misclassified operators as exempt, which constituted a breach of contract under state law. The Court reasoned that even though Plaintiff alleged that all operators were subject to the same pay schedule, he did not submit evidence that operators’ contracts underpinning the pay schedules were subject to the same state’s laws. Therefore, the Court was unable to conclude that the breach of contract claim would turn on the same legal principles for each putative class member. The Court reasoned that for a unilateral contract claim, Plaintiff must demonstrate that Defendant manifested an intent to offer a unilateral contract and that Plaintiff was justified in relying on that manifestation. However, the Court determined that Plaintiff failed to offer any evidence in support of his contention that the same contract was provided to each operator and that each operator was