18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 195 received day rate pay and a "half rate" for overtime hours worked, and paid annual and safety bonuses. Following the filing of Defendant’s decertification motion, Plaintiff conceded that partial decertification was appropriate as to the off-the-clock claims and the lunch deduction claims of Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs, however, asserted that it would be proper to deny decertification and instead create three sub-collective actions of Plaintiffs, including: (i) those who received a $10,000 safety bonus and/or an annual safety bonus; (ii) those who received other forms of compensation in addition to their day rate; and (iii) Plaintiffs who received a "half-day rate" within the applicable statute of limitations. Id . at *7. The Magistrate Judge held that Plaintiffs’ proposed sub-collective actions indicated that drivers were paid with different compensation methods and thus drivers’ similarities did not even extend to similar pay provisions. The Magistrate Judge further reasoned that there were different defenses available to Defendant for each opt-in Plaintiff’s claim, including whether it would be relying on the Motor Carrier Act exemption, whether the opt-in Plaintiff worked overtime, or whether the time worked over 40 hours in a week was de minimis . The Magistrate Judge also determined that the damages calculation would require individualized inquiries as to each driver. Finally, the Magistrate Judge noted that fairness and procedural considerations favored decertification, as there were not sufficient common issues of law and fact arising from the same alleged illegal conduct. Id . at *18-19. For these reasons, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendant’s motion for decertification should be granted. Bullard, et al. v. Allied Staff Augmentation Partners, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44104 (M.D. Fla. March 5, 2021). Plaintiff, a staffing 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 collective action consisting of all employees paid the same hourly rate for all work performed, including those worked overt 40 hours in a workweek (“straight time employees”). Defendant employed workers in the energy and engineering industries in more than 100 job classifications or titles in at least eight different states. Id . at *3. Defendant contended that Plaintiff could not establish that all straight time employees were similarly-situated. The Court agreed that as framed in their motion, Plaintiff’s proposed collective action was overly broad, as it consisting of a nationwide group of straight time employees, with differing positions, titles, clients, job duties, and supervisors. The Court found that without more, an alleged policy for paying straight time rather than overtime rates was not sufficient to make the requisite showing to demonstrate that the proposed collective action members were similarly-situated for purposes of 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The Court opined that if it were to entertain such a broad interpretation of the similarly-situated language of the FLSA, the Court would come close to certifying a collective action any time a Plaintiff claimed widespread violations of the statute. Id. at *8. For these reasons, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Carr, et al. v. AutoZoner, LLC , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202210 (N.D. Ala. Oct. 20, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of store managers, 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. The Court previously had granted Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of a collective action. After discovery, Defendant subsequently moved to decertify the collective action, and the Court granted the motion. Defendant asserted that store managers were correctly designated as exempt employees under the executive exemption to the FLSA. Plaintiffs contended that they were improperly categorized as exempt and that their job duties were mostly non-managerial in nature. The Court ruled that based on the record, there were material differences in the managerial duties that Plaintiffs actually performed and in their discretion over those duties. The Court determined that there were significant variations in how store managers across the country scheduled employees, and that store managers had differing levels of authority and responsibility for other supervisory duties, including training, evaluating employees, recommending pay raises, and disciplining employees. Additionally, the Court noted that testimony from collective action members revealed vast variations in the amount and level of corrective action that store managers provided to employees, as some made recommendations to their district managers and some were not involved at all. The Court further ruled that there were material differences regarding store managers’ involvement with and discretion over supervisory duties relating to training, evaluating employees, recommending raises, and discipline. Id . at *24. Thus, the Court held that there were differences between Plaintiffs’ ability to direct the work of two or more employees that would preclude a finding that all store managers were similarly-situated with respect to that element of the executive exemption defense. Id . at *28. The Court further noted that Plaintiffs also had varying accounts of their level of