18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

254 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition assertions that Defendant did not fully pay them for the earned compensatory time off, and Defendant submitted proof that Plaintiffs were paid by check. Accordingly, the Court ruled that no reasonable juror could believe that Plaintiffs were not paid for their compensatory time off, and thereby granted summary judgment as to Plaintiffs’ claims regarding payment for accrued compensatory time off. Defendant also submitted over 400 pages of timesheets and payroll data for Plaintiffs showing that Plaintiffs were paid for all hours submitted on their timesheets. Id . at *6. Plaintiffs argued that factual disputes existed as to whether their timesheets were inaccurate. The Court opined that Plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence as to specific weeks that Plaintiffs worked overtime for which they were not compensated, or any notes or other documents regarding their hours that they could compare to the business records kept by Defendant regarding their hours. The Court held that even taking the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, their evidence was conclusory, inconsistent, not supported by specific facts, and insufficient to allow a jury to determine the amount and extent of alleged overtime work or to award damages. Id . at *9. Accordingly, the Court also found that Defendant was entitled to summary judgment as to Plaintiffs’ claims regarding unpaid overtime hours. The Court therefore granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety, and dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice. Plaintiff No. 1, et al. v. United States , Case No. 19-CV-94 (Fed. Cl. March 4, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of federal government employees, filed a collective action alleging that Defendants failed to wages to which they were entitled under the FLSA because they were required to work without being paid on their regularly scheduled paydays during a government shutdown. The Court of Federal Claims denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss, holding that the Anti-Deficiency Act’s (“ADA”), including the Government Employees Fair Treatment Act of 2019 (“GEFTA”), did not abrogate Defendant’s obligations under the FLSA during a government shutdown. Under the ADA, an “officer or employee” of the federal government “may not…make or authorize an expenditure or obligation exceeding an amount available in an appropriation or fund for the expenditure or obligation.” Id . at 3. The GEFTA amendment to the ADA provides that “each excepted employee who is required to perform work during a covered lapse in appropriations shall be paid for such work, at the employee’s standard rate of pay, at the earliest date possible after the lapse in appropriations ends, regardless of scheduled pay dates and subject to the enactment of appropriations Acts ending the lapse.” Id . at 4. Defendant argued that Plaintiffs’ complaint should be dismissed because the agencies for which appropriations lapsed were prohibited by the ADA from paying their employees. Plaintiffs contended that they were essential and excepted employees of Defendant who were non-exempted from pay and that they worked without being paid during the government shutdown. The Court acknowledged that the parties had a significant disagreement with regard to interpreting and applying the regulations. The Court, however, determined that taking the facts as alleged in the complaint and drawing all reasonable inferences in Plaintiffs’ favor, they sufficiently stated a claim for relief under the FLSA. For these reasons, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (xv) Foreign Worker Issues In Wage & Hour Class Actions Nwauzor, et al. v. Geo Group, Case No. 17-CV-5806 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 16, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of foreign-based workers, brought consolidated class actions alleged that Defendant failed to pay immigration detainee workers in its Voluntary Work Program minimum wages at its Northwest Detention Center, now renamed the Northwest ICE Processing Center. Defendant, the State of Washington, filed a Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law. The Court denied the motion. The Court also declined to find that Defendant GEO Group’s status as a federal government contractor allowed it to claim governmental immunity. The Court ruled that the State of Washington’s minimum wage laws applied to GEO Group. The Court therefore denied the motion for judgment as a matter of law. Posada, et al. v. Cultural Care, Inc. , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153230 (D. Mass. Aug. 13, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of au pairs, filed a class and collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay all wages due in violation of the FLSA and various state wage & hour laws. Plaintiffs were foreign nationals who participated as au pairs in the au pair program under the J-1 Exchange Visitor Visa Program. Defendant sponsored Plaintiffs, coordinated their immigration process, and placed them with a host family. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The Court denied Defendant’s motion. Through the J-1 visa program, foreign workers were hosted by a family, and provided child care in exchange a weekly stipend, room, and board. Defendant argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims because it was protected by derivative sovereign immunity since it functioned as a federal government administration in its work connecting the host families to