18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 201 Plaintiffs joined the action. Following discovery, Defendant filed a motion to decertify the collective action, and the Court denied the motion. Defendant contracted with the District of Columbia to "manage and administer" non-emergency medical transportation ("NEMT") services for Medicaid recipients. Id. at *3. MTM contracted with transportation service providers ("TSPs") that employed the drivers. Plaintiffs argued that because there are common issues of law or fact, any dissimilarities among the 155 opt-in Plaintiffs did not defeat collective action treatment. Plaintiffs specifically outlined three common issues that warranted collective-wide treatment, including: (i) whether Defendant qualified as Plaintiffs’ joint employer; (ii) whether Defendant suffered or permitted Plaintiffs to work; and (iii) whether time Plaintiffs traveling between trips provided to MTM clients and waiting for MTM clients qualified as compensable work under the FLSA. Id. at *13. Defendant argued that there was no evidence of a company-wide policy or practice that violated the FLSA and therefore Plaintiffs were not similarly-situated. Defendant further contended that even if the Court looked beyond a common policy, Plaintiffs’ proposed issues would not materially advance the disposition of all Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims because they would have to be resolved on an individualized, driver-by-driver basis. Id. at *14. The Court disagreed with Defendant’s position. It found that the question of whether Defendant qualified as Plaintiffs’ joint employer could be dispositive of the entire action. The Court opined that although evidence regarding each driver’s schedule, assignments, and pay may be individualized, Defendant’s role in devising the terms of employment was not. The Court reasoned that if Plaintiffs could not carry their burden to show that Defendant was their joint employer, the case effectively would be over, as Defendant would not be liable for any alleged violations. The Court held that collective action treatment would thus benefit individual opt-in Plaintiffs and the judicial system by the efficient resolution in one proceeding of a common issue of law and fact. For these reasons, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to decertify the collective action. (xiii) Federal Court Of Claims Plaintiff No. 1, et al. v. United States , 2021 U.S. Claims LEXIS 573 (Fed. Cl. April 9, 2021) . Plaintiffs, two Supervisory Investigative Specialists ("SIS") employed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), filed a collective action alleging that Defendants misclassified them as exempt employees and thereby failed to pay them overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, which the Court granted. The Court found that Plaintiffs met their evidentiary burden and made the requisite factual showing that the proposed collective action members were similarly-situated. Id . at *4. The Court opined that the members of Plaintiffs’ proposed collective action also had the same job position with the same agency at the same paygrade. In support of their motion, Plaintiff submitted the FBI position description form applicable to all collective action members that showed the position as exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA. Plaintiffs further attested that based on their experience with and observations of SIS assigned to other FBI field offices, all of them had substantially similar job duties and requirements. The Court determined that Plaintiffs’ evidence was adequate to show that all proposed collective action members were similarly-situated and subject to Defendant’s policy or plan that treated their position as exempt. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Smith, et al. v. United States, 2021 U.S. Claims LEXIS 2213 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 15, 2021). Plaintiff, an Assistant Canteen Chief (“ACC”) at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”), 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 in part and denied in part. Plaintiff was employed as an ACC at the Canteen locations in Palo Alto and Menlo Park, California. Plaintiff alleged that she and other similarly-situated ACCs were improperly classified as exempt from the FLSA overtime provisions because most of their work involved non-exempt manual, rather than managerial, tasks. Plaintiff contended that she spent 90% of her time conducting manual tasks in the food service, retail store, and coffee products and services components of the store. Id . at *4. Plaintiff asserted that she regularly worked 14 to 16 hour days and was called in to work on scheduled off days. Plaintiff further asserted that the primary job duties of ACCs included assignment to different areas of each canteen, as directed by the Chiefs who supervised the Assistant Chiefs, and their primary duties consisted of time spent preparing, making and serving food to canteen customers, performing cleaning tasks, ringing the registers, manning the counters, and stocking the stores. Id . at *18. Plaintiff sought conditional certification of a collective action consisting of all ACCs nationwide. In support of her motion, Plaintiff submitted 24 exhibits and her own declaration. Plaintiff’s claim, as she alleged in her complaint, turned on decisions made by Chiefs at the two canteen locations where she worked. The Court concluded that