18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

232 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition employment with Defendant ended. The Court determined that Plaintiffs stated a plausible claim for relief on this theory. However, the Court granted dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claim under § 210 of the CLC for Defendant’s alleged violations of § 204, as it was not properly before the Court. Id . at *36. The Court concluded that § 210(b) dictates that employees can recover statutory penalties only by seeking administrative relief under § 98 of the CLC, and Plaintiffs’ wage claim did not comport with that instruction. Id . at *37. For these reasons, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss. In Re Amazon.com Fulfillment Center Fair Labor Standards Act And Wage & Hour Litigation, Case No. 18-5964 (6th Cir. Aug. 13, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of warehouse employees, filed a class action alleging that Defendant failed to pay for time spent undergoing mandatory security screenings in violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (“PMWA”). The District Court previously had granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that the time spent undergoing screening was not compensable under the PMWA. On Plaintiffs’ appeal, the Sixth Circuit certified two questions to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, including: (i) whether time spent on an employer’s premises waiting to undergo and undergoing mandatory security screening was compensable as “hours worked” within the meaning of the PMWA; and (ii) whether the de minimis doctrine applied to bar claims brought under the PMWA. Id . at 2. The Supreme Court answered the first question in the affirmative and the second in the negative. Accordingly, since the District Court’s previous ruling was inconsistent with the decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Johnson, et al. v. Winco Foods, LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5388 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2021). Plaintiff filed a class action alleging that Defendant failed to compensate applicants for the time spent and costs incurred undergoing mandatory drug-testing during the hiring process in violation of state wage & hour laws. Plaintiff further contended that after being hired, Defendant failed to compensate for off-the-clock work performed and for meal and rest periods. Following discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion and granted in part Defendant’s motion. Plaintiff argued that class members were actually employees at the time of testing because Defendant "exercised sufficient control over [them] to establish employee status.” Id . at *8. Alternatively, Plaintiff argued that an employment contract was formed when class members accepted Defendant’s offer of employment, and that the mandatory drug test was merely a "condition subsequent to the formation of each class member’s employment contract." Id. at *9. Defendant contended that employers could "specify application events" such as the time, place, and manner of drug testing in much the same way that they specify the parameters of interviews without thereby employing applicants. Defendant further asserted that no employment contract had been formed at the time of testing and employees were not entitled to compensation for the time spent undergoing testing. Id . at *10. The Court noted that the undisputed facts of this case clearly demonstrated that Defendant instituted drug testing as a preemployment condition. The Court further determined that employers exercise some degree of control over job applicants in many situations, including requiring applicants appear at a certain time and place for an interview; undergo a writing or skills test; pass a background check, or interview with multiple people. The Court ruled that these conditions did not make applicants into employees. Because there was no genuine dispute of material fact and both Plaintiff’s contract theory and control theory failed as a matter of law, the Court held that Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on the issue of whether class members were employees at the time of drug testing. As to Plaintiff’s overtime claims and minimum wage claims, the Court found that looking at all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Plaintiff performed off-the-clock overtime work, or missed meal periods. For these reasons, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion and granted in part Defendant’s motion. Larry, et al. v. Kelly Services , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156580 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 19, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of recruiters, filed a class and collective action alleging that Defendant misclassified them and others similarly- situated as exempt employees and thereby failed to pay overtime compensation and all wages due in violation of the FLSA, the Kentucky Wage & Hour Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the California Labor Code (“CLC”). Defendant filed a partial motion to dismiss the California-based claims as insufficient as a matter of law. Plaintiff asserted that Defendant failed to provide California-based Plaintiff West with meal period breaks, and did not provide proper compensation for this failure as required by California law. Plaintiff further contended that California-based recruiters did not receive rest periods during their shifts of 12 or more hours as required by