18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 289 employment paradigm,” and those individuals in custodial detention are not in an employer-employee relationship but in a detainer-detainee relationship that falls outside that paradigm. Id . at *7. The Fourth Circuit opined that the differences between these relationships made this case distinguishable because in an detainer- detainee relationship, individuals are under the control and supervision of the detention facility, which could not be compared to a free labor market, in which a worker can voluntarily leave the workplace. Id . at *8. Further, the Fourth Circuit reasoned that even if the work program in a detention facility was voluntary and involved an exchange of money, that did not lead to a conclusion of a “bargained-for” exchange of labor, because the detainee does not engage in “arms-length” negotiations, as the opportunity is available "solely at the prerogative" of the custodian. Id . at *6. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit ruled that Plaintiffs’ work at the detention facility was not governed by the FLSA and it affirmed the District Court’s ruling granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Portillo, et al. v. National Freight, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148725 (D.N.J. Aug. 9, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of truck drivers who contracted with Defendant, a logistics provider, filed a class action alleging that Defendant misclassified them as independent contractors and thereby failed to pay for vehicle expenses in violation of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. The Court previously had granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion seeking to compel class notice. Plaintiffs asserted that Defendant improperly refused to send class notices to approximately 50 drivers in the class definition. Plaintiffs contended that Defendant failed to include 36 individuals who signed both a Texas independent contractor agreement and a New Jersey agreement. Defendant argued that Texas courts must decide any dispute about the effect of the Texas agreements. The Court confirmed that drivers who signed one or more New Jersey and Texas agreements were class members eligible to recover for injuries. The Court also found that Defendant’s conduct was misleading and coercive and threatened the fairness of the litigation. The Court noted that Plaintiffs contended that certain entities that delivered for Defendant should be included in the class definition. The Court rejected inclusion of three trucking companies who were not deemed to be part of the class definition. The Court determined that it lacked discretion under Rule 23 to order notice to drivers determined not to be class members, and that Plaintiffs failed to show that notice was necessary to avoid prejudice to these non-class members. Accordingly, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion to compel notice to class members. Winsor, et al. v. TBD Pizza, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60769 (D.N.H. March 30, 2021). Plaintiff, a group of pizza delivery drivers, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay minimum wages and failed reimburse drivers for vehicle expenses violation of the FLSA. Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, which the Court denied. Defendant argued that conditional certification was not appropriate because 368 of the delivery drivers, or nearly all of the employees who would make up the proposed collective action, were subject to arbitration agreements that required all employment-related claims to go to arbitration. The Court opined that drivers who were bound by the arbitration agreements were facially ineligible to participate in a collective action, but might be eligible if the arbitration agreement was deemed to be invalid or unenforceable. The Court explained that the forum selection clause in the agreements required that judicial review be limited to a "state or federal court located in Boston, Massachusetts." Id . at *5-6. The Court thus ruled that the validity of the arbitration agreements must be resolved prior to determining whether the parties were similarly-situated for purposes of conditional certification. The Court ruled that pursuant to the forum selection clause, only the federal court in Boston was a proper forum in which to resolve the effect of the arbitration agreements. Accordingly, the Court ruled that the convenience, efficient use of judicial resources, respect for mandatory forum selection clauses, and the interests of justice, all favored transferring the matter to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Id . a t*13-14. For these reasons, the Court declined to rule on the motion for conditional certification. (xxviii) Public Employee FLSA Collective Action Litigation Zimmerli, et al. v. City Of Kansas City, 996 F.3d 857 (8th Cir. 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of employees of the Kansas City, Missouri Fire Department, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. The District Court granted conditional certification of two collective actions, including: (i) one comprised of Paramedics/EMTs based on fire stations who worked 24-hour shifts; and (ii) one comprised those cross-trained or dual-purpose firefighter/paramedics, or "Fire Medics." Id . at 861.