18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 273 Id . The Court thus held that Defendant failed to establish Plaintiffs’ unreported call time was de minimis as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Court granted in part and denied in part the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgement. Higgins, et al. v. Bayada Home Health Care, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180587 (M.D. Penn. Sept. 22, 2021). Plaintiff, a former registered nurse, brought a putative class and collective action on behalf of herself and all others similarly-situated, alleging overtime violations pursuant to the FLSA and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (“PMWA”). Defendant filed a motion for summary judgement, which the Court granted. Plaintiff previously had filed a motion for conditional certification to represent a group of clinicians formerly employed by Defendant and who had worked in patients’ homes who were misclassified as exempt from overtime under the FLSA. The Court had granted Plaintiff’s motion. Subsequently, Plaintiff argued that Defendant’s compensation structure did not satisfy the FLSA and PMWA’s “salary basis” requirement in taking clinicians’ accrued PTO to fill productivity shortfalls that were required by Defendant, which issued a guaranteed weekly salary plus offering the “ability to earn additional compensation for work in excess of their expected productivity.” Id. at *16. Plaintiffs contended that because an increase in expected productivity led to an increase in pay and a decrease led to less pay as well as a reduction in PTO, Defendant was forcing clinicians to “pay back” PTO and its policy therefore did not meet the FLSA’s overtime exemption requirement. The Court ruled that because PTO was “separate and district from an employees’ salary,” the law permitted employers to reduce such benefits for missed work, that failure to meet expected productivity levels could be construed as missed work, and that this was consistent with the FLSA’s professional employee exemption from overtime pay when an employer provided a guaranteed weekly salary. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgement. Id. at *24. Howard v. Post Foods, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10152 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 20, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of manufacturing employees, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court denied. Defendant implemented the new uniform policy, the "Captive Uniform Policy" or "CUP,” which provided that employees must change into their uniforms at work following a specific procedure. Id . at *3. Plaintiffs asserted that the CUP "substantially increased the time” an employee spent on Defendant’s premises before their shift officially began and after it ended. Id . Accordingly, Plaintiffs contended that they were entitled to overtime compensation for the time spent complying with the CUP before and after their shifts. Defendant argue that parties’ collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) excluded changing clothes from measured work time. Defendant thus argued that Plaintiffs sought compensation for time that was not compensable under the CBA. The Court determined that Plaintiffs’ principal activities could include donning, doffing, and sanitizing their work garb, if those activities were "an intrinsic element of their production activities and ones with which the employees cannot dispense if they are to perform their principal activities." Id . at *10. The Court also determined that washing and taking other measures to prevent contamination in the production building were integral and indispensable to Plaintiffs’ work producing uncontaminated cereal. For these reasons, the Court ruled that Plaintiffs sought compensation for the walking and waiting time occurring after Plaintiffs’ first principal activity, which was therefore, compensable under the continuous workday doctrine. Accordingly, the Court held that Plaintiffs sufficiently stated a claim, and it denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Jones, et al. v. Univesco, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59118 (E.D. Tex. March 29, 2021). Plaintiff, an assistant property manager at one of Defendant’s rental property locations, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay the correct overtime rate in violation of the FLSA. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Court granted. Defendant offered a discount on rent to its employees if they choose to reside at one of its properties, which included a 20% discount at any property, and a 40% discount if the employee resided at the property where they worked. Defendant deducted the cost of rent from the paychecks of employees who receive the discount. Plaintiff utilized the 40% discount, and his month rent became $857.40. Defendant did not include the rent deduction in the calculation of overtime compensation. Defendant argued that the rent discount fell under two exemptions to its employees’ regular rate of pay, including: (i) the "other similar payments to an employee which are not made as compensation for his hours of employment;" and (iii) the "gift" exemption. Id . at *5. Defendant asserted that there was no "reasonable cost" to provide the rent discount to Plaintiff and, therefore, no amount to add to Plaintiff’s regular rate of pay. Id. The Court concluded that the rent