18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

300 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition (xxxiv) Statute Of Limitations Issues In Wage & Hour Class Action Litigation Freeman, et al. v. Sam ’ s East, Inc. , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144906 (D.N.J. Aug. 3, 2021). Plaintiff, an assistant manager, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant misclassified assistant managers as exempt employees and thereby failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Court granted. Defendant argued that Plaintiff could not show that he was misclassified as exempt as a matter of law. The Court noted that Plaintiff filed the collective action more than two years after his employment with Defendant ended, and therefore his claims could only survive if he could provide evidence that Defendant’s alleged violations of the FLSA were willful. Defendant argued that: (i) Defendant’s job descriptions for two assistant manager positions relevant to Plaintiff’s employment described an "exempt" job; (ii) other assistant managers performed the same job; (iii) neither case law authorities nor the U.S. Department of Labor had ever determined that assistant managers were misclassified as exempt; (iv) Plaintiff’s individual claim that he was assigned non-exempt work as a primary duty and that he was not required to supervise subordinates did not arise to willfulness; and (v) Plaintiff never asserted during his employment that he was misclassified. Plaintiff contended that his job duties changed during his employment, and he performed no managerial work, only associate work, and therefore he was essentially demoted to an associate and thus denied overtime pay. The Court determined that Plaintiff failed to assert during his employment that his job duties changed such that he was actually preforming labor that would be hourly non-exempt work. The Court noted that Plaintiff failed to provide any evidence that there was any awareness by Defendant, and thus no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant acted willfully. Accordingly, the Court held that the two- year statute of limitations applied to Plaintiff’s claims. Since there were more than two years between when Plaintiff’s employment ended and when the lawsuit was filed, Plaintiff’s claim was time-barred. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as a matter of law and dismissed Plaintiff’s claims. Woods, et al. v. First Transit , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193546 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 7, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of bus drivers, filed a class and collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay minimum wages for pre-shift and post-shift time spent working and for meal and rest breaks, and failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA, the Ohio Fair Minimum Wage Amendment ("OFMWA"), the California Labor Code, and the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), which the Court granted in part. The Court found that Plaintiffs’ California and New York claims would substantially predominate over the FLSA claim and, therefore, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims. The Court held that Plaintiffs’ California and New York minimum wage claims would require separate discovery, analysis, and proof that would predominate such that dismissal of those claims would be appropriate. The Court also opined that declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the California and New York claims at the pleading stage would serve judicial economy and convenience. The Court next addressed the limitations period for the remaining FLSA and OFMWA claims. Defendant argued that to the extent that Plaintiffs sought a three-year limitations period they failed to assert any allegations that Defendant’s conduct was willful. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant knew it failed to pay its fixed-route drivers legally mandated wages "for work they performed with Defendant’s knowledge and for its benefit." Id . at *29. Plaintiffs further alleged that Defendant "intentionally" violated the FLSA by maintaining certain policies and procedures "that knowingly deny its drivers overtime wage payments," but alleged no facts that plausibly suggested any intent or knowledge on Defendant’s part. Id . The Court ruled that because Plaintiffs pleaded only conclusory assertions about Defendant’s willfulness, they failed to establish willfulness. This limited Plaintiffs’ FLSA claim to a two-year period. As to the OMWFSA claim, the Court found that under this statute the limitations period was two years and that it had no exemption for willful violations. Accordingly, the Court ruled that Plaintiffs’ claims that Defendant violated the OMWFSA should be subject to the two-year limitation period. For these reasons, the Court granted in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (xxxv) Stay Orders In FLSA Collective Actions Plaintiff No. 1, et al. v. United States , Case No. 19-CV-94 (Fed. Cl. March 11, 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 the government shutdown. The Court of Federal Claims previously had denied