18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

202 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition although Plaintiff sufficiently asserted that she and other ACCs at her canteen locations were similarly-situated, she failed to meet that burden with respect to ACCs in other canteens. The Court reasoned that the overtime decisions were vested in the discretion of Canteen Chiefs and regional managers, and thus, Plaintiff’s evidence established that putative collective action members in the Palo Alto and Menlo Park, California canteens, under the same management as Plaintiff, may have been treated similarly. The Court held that it would be unreasonable to extrapolate Plaintiff’s experience to employees in other canteens and regions. Id . at *23. The Court ruled that Plaintiff provided sufficient evidence to grant conditional certification of a collective action consisting of ACCs employed at the Palo Alto and Menlo Park, California canteens. Accordingly, the Court granted in part Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action. B. Other Federal Rulings Affecting The Defense Of FLSA Collective Actions Throughout 2021, federal courts issued a wide variety of rulings on procedural and substantive matters in FLSA collective action litigation. Those rulings included amendments and counterclaims in FLSA collective actions; arbitration of wage & hour class and collective claims; awards of attorneys’ fees and costs in FLSA collective actions; class and collective actions involving Volunteers; class communications in wage & hour class actions; concurrent state law claims in wage & hour class actions; coverage in FLSA collective actions; disqualification in FLSA collective actions; discovery in FLSA collective actions; DOL wage & hour enforcement actions; equitable tolling in wage & hour class actions; exemption issues in FLSA collective actions; FLSA collective actions for donning and doffing; FLSA collective actions involving government employees; foreign worker issues in wage & hour class actions; independent contractor issues in wage & hour class actions; individual executive liability in FLSA collective actions; issues with opt-in rights in wage & hour class actions; joint employer, employee status, and employer status issues in FLSA collective actions; jurisdictional issues in wage & hour collective and class actions; migrant and seasonal agricultural worker protection act class actions; Motor Carrier Act issues in FLSA collective actions; notice issues in FLSA collective actions; pay policies and bonuses in FLSA collective actions; preemption and immunity issues in FLSA collective actions; preemptive motion issues in FLSA collective actions; procedural issues in FLSA collective actions; public employee FLSA collective action litigation; retaliation claims in wage & hour class actions; sanctions in wage & hour class actions; settlement approval issues in wage & hour class actions and FLSA collective actions; settlement bar and estoppel issues in wage & hour class actions; sleep-time policies in wage & hour class action litigation; statute of limitations issues in wage & hour class action litigation; stay orders in FLSA collective actions; tip pooling and tip credit claims under the FLSA; travel time issues in wage & hour class action litigation; venue issues in FLSA collective actions; and wage & hour class and collective actions involving students and interns. (i) Amendments And Counterclaims In FLSA Collective Actions Luster, et al. v. AWP Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70848 (N.D. Ohio April 13, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of air traffic control employees, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay for commuting to and from worksites, inspecting their vehicles before and after their commutes, transporting tools and equipment, fueling the vehicles and picking up and dropping off co-workers, which resulted in denial of overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. Defendant previously had filed a motion to dismiss arguing that Plaintiffs’ claims were foreclosed as a matter of law by the Portal to Portal Act ("PPA"), and the Court granted the motion. The Court held that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they performed compensable work for which they were not properly paid overtime under the FLSA or that their activities were integral and indispensable to the productive work they were hired to perform, i.e. , the duties of traffic control specialists. Id . at *4. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion to amend or alter the Court’s judgment or for leave to file an amended complaint in order to clarify their factual claims. Defendant argued that amendment after dismissal should permitted only in the most exceptional circumstances and not simply after Plaintiff had the benefit of the Court’s guidance on the complaint’s deficiencies. Defendant asserted that Plaintiffs identified no legal error in the Court’s opinion; or any change in the prevailing law; and pointed to no newly-discovered evidence. The Court agreed that Plaintiffs had not satisfied their burden and had not provided a compelling explanation why they neither amended nor sought leave to amend prior to judgment being entered. Plaintiffs argued they never had the opportunity to cure any alleged factual deficiencies or to provide clarification with respect to any alleged deficiency. The Court rejected this argument. It opined that Plaintiffs had to know from the outset what facts needed to be alleged since the FLSA imposed upon Plaintiffs the burden to show they performed compensable work. Defendant moved for