18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 243 U.S. Department Of Labor v. Unitil Services Corp., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221792 (D.N.H. Nov. 17, 2021). The U.S. Department of Labor ("DOL") alleged that Defendant misclassified Electric Distribution Dispatchers ("Dispatchers") and Senior Gas Controllers ("Controllers") as exempt employees and thereby failed to pay them overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. Following discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether Dispatchers and Controllers were subject to the administrative exemption to the FLSA. The Court granted Defendant’s motion and denied the DOL’s motion. The DOL argued that the employees were not administrative employees because their primary duties were not directly related to Defendant’s general business operations and that genuine disputes of material fact existed as to whether the employees exercised discretion and independent judgment as part of their primary duties. The Court determined that the primary duty of Dispatchers was remote monitoring of the physical infrastructure owned and operated by customers and intervening in limited circumstances to control the infrastructure to ensure the safety of other employees who maintained the infrastructure. Id . at *30. The Court thus ruled that the primary duty of Dispatchers was "directly related" to the general business operations of Defendant’s customers. Controllers’ duties were comparable to the functional work areas listed under § 541.20 of the FLSA’s regulations, such as monitoring the transmission system and tracking alarms to determine whether problems on the system were related to health, safety, and quality control tasks. In analyzing this issue, the Court addressed whether the duties required the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance. The Court found that both positions did so. Specifically, the Court reasoned that Dispatchers must exercise discretion and independent judgment in interpreting the data provided to them and Controllers must formulate immediate and independent decisions about which set of actions to take depending on the present circumstances. Id . at *40. Accordingly, the Court ruled that Defendant sufficiently established that there were no genuine disputes of material fact relative to the elements of the jobs of Dispatchers and Controllers regarding the FLSA’s administrative employee exemption. Id . at *42. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendant’s motion and denied the DOL’s motion for summary judgement. (xi) Equitable Tolling In Wage & Hour Class Actions Hanna, et al. v. Marriott Hotel Services LLC , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174284 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 14, 2021). Plaintiff, a hotel banquet employee, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. On December 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action. On February 5, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for merits discovery. Because of the Court’s heavy docket, it was unable to rule on the motion for conditional certification until February 11, 2020, at which time the Court granted conditional certification of a collective action consisting of all banquet staff employees of Defendants in Tennessee who worked over 40 hours a week and were paid a fixed rate during the previous three years. Thereafter, on May 7, 2020, the Court limited the collective action to include all banquet staff employees at Defendant’s Gaylord Opryland Resort and Convention Center in Nashville, Tennessee. Plaintiffs had until October 26, 2020 to opt-in to the action. Plaintiff subsequently requested equitable tolling for the limitations period from December 11, 2018 (the date Plaintiff moved for conditional certification) to October 26, 2020 (the end of the opt-in period) on the basis that Defendant did not notify any potential Plaintiffs of theirs right to opt-in to the action. Id . at *13-14. The Court explained that opt-in Plaintiffs, to obtain equitable tolling, need to show that they were diligent in asserting their rights under the FLSA, i.e., they made reasonable efforts to file an opt-in consent before their limitations period expired. Id . at *14-15. Since potential opt-in Plaintiffs had no knowledge of the pending conditional certification motion, and knew nothing of the pending collective action, the Court opined that there was nothing preventing them from filing their own action within the limitations period. For these reasons, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for equitable tolling. (xii) Exemption Issues In FLSA Collective Actions Adams, et al. v. All Coast, LLC, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 4003 (5th Cir. Feb. 11, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of maritime workers who primarily operated hydraulic cranes, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant failed to provide its maritime employees with overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. Defendant technically employed Plaintiffs as “seamen,” but according to Plaintiffs, they spent between 25% to 90% of their time operating cranes to move personnel and equipment between lift boats and the dock. Id . at *3. Shortly after Plaintiffs filed this action, the lift boat cooks opted-in to the collective action as well. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment, which the District Court granted. Specifically, the District Court concluded