18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

198 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition single decision, policy, or plan." Id. at *3. The Court reasoned that Plaintiff alleged that all collective action members were subject to Defendant’s unlawful policies and/or practices that resulted in FLSA violations. Specifically, Plaintiff asserted that Defendant "uniformly applied its policy of paying its Inspectors, including Morris, a day rate with no overtime compensation," even when they worked over 40 hours per week. Id . at *5. Plaintiff also alleged that Defendant "applied this policy regardless of any alleged individualized factors such as job position, job duties/responsibilities, or geographic location." Id . The Court concluded that Plaintiff’s allegations and evidentiary support were together sufficient to warrant conditional certification under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Morrison, et al. v. G&S Glass & Supply, Inc. , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184115 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 30, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of field supervisors, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant failed to properly paid for travel time and thereby did not pay all overtime compensation due in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, which the Court granted. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant’s "Company Paid Riding Time” policy, which stated that an employee would be paid for time spent traveling to a job site if approved by company management, resulted in FLSA violations. Plaintiffs asserted that they were regularly required to travel overnight to job sites to perform work, but were only paid their rate of pay for riding time as set out in the company policy, for some, but not all of the hours spent traveling from their homes to the job site, from the job site to their homes, or sometimes from one overnight job site to another overnight job site. Plaintiff further contended that Defendant did not count travel time hours as hours worked when calculating overtime due. Plaintiffs also asserted that they were "aware that other employees worked under this policy and were paid the same way [they] were" and that others wished to opt-in to the collective action. Id . at *6-7. Defendant argued that Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden for conditional certification because they did not demonstrate that similarly-situated employees existed who suffered FLSA violations due to the travel policy. The Court determined that since there was already one opt-in Plaintiff, there was sufficient possibility that other similarly-situated employees may wish to opt-in to the lawsuit. Further, the Court held that Plaintiffs had submitted sufficiently detailed declarations representing their employment, their duties, their experiences in traveling from home to job sites, and that they all averred that Defendant’s travel policy violated the FLSA. In addition, the Court noted that Defendant’s declarations included information that showed that all Plaintiffs had the same position while working at Defendant at some time. The Court held that Plaintiffs met their burden at the conditional certification stage to show that they were similarly-situated to the members of the proposed collective action. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Raskin, et al. v. American Bankers Life Assurance Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128949 (S.D. Fla. July 12, 2021). Plaintiff, a SIU Investigator, filed a collective action alleging that Defendants failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, and the Court denied the motion. Defendants asserted that the entire universe of purportedly similarly-situated individuals consisted of only 14 employees. Five individuals had filed opt-in consents to join the collective action. The Court determined that there was insufficient evidence that additional individuals wished to opt-in to the action, and the total denominator here was simply too small to warrant conditional certification. Id . at 7. The Court further reasoned that Plaintiffs failed to offer any evidence that more people wished to opt-in. The Court thus ruled that Plaintiff failed to make the requisite showing necessary to demonstrate that other members of the proposed collective action wished to opt-in to the lawsuit, thereby making conditional certification inappropriate. For these reasons, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Reyes, et al. v. Strada Services, Inc. , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184115 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2021). Plaintiff, an electrical installer, 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. Defendant employed both installers and “helpers” who rode with the installers and assisted on projects. Id . at *3. Plaintiff alleged that he was paid a piece-rate for each job assigned no matter the amount of time spent completing the job. Plaintiff asserted that this led to installers being denied overtime compensation. Further, Plaintiff contended that he was "forced" to give a portion of his pay to the helper assigned to him, and although the pay was discretionary, Defendant directed installers to pay helpers 30%. Id. Plaintiff sought conditional certification of a collective action consisting of all employees “working from or reporting to an office or location in