18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

380 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition worked at were subject to the sub-contract between Defendants. Id . at *7. Moreover, the Court determined that because the affiants testified that they worked at a multitude of different homeless shelters while employed by Defendant, Plaintiff had provided evidence, beyond pure speculation, that security guards who worked at any homeless shelter in Washington D.C. during the relevant time period while employed by Defendant may have been subject to the same policy of underpaying employees. Id . Defendant also argued that Plaintiff did not have personal knowledge of the job duties and responsibilities of other employees at locations where she did not work, and therefore could not establish that those employees were similarly-situated to her. Id . at *8. The Court disagreed. It found that Plaintiff provided evidence of additional security guards who worked at multiple homeless shelters throughout Washington, D.C. and sufficiently established that all were paid in the same manner. Accordingly, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action. (iv) Florida Bain, et al. v. Fly Low, Inc., Case No. 2018-029725-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Dec. 2, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of dancers at an adult nightclub, filed a class action alleging that Defendants misclassified the dancers as independent contractors and thereby failed to pay minimum wages in violation of the Florida Minimum Wage Act (“FMWA”). Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs and awarded unpaid minimum wages. The jury also found that Defendants “recklessly disregarded” their obligations as whether the dancers should be treated as employees and thus awarded liquidated damages. Id . at 2. The verdict awarded Plaintiffs individual back pay awards, which ranged from $20,000 to $266,000, plus an equal amount in liquidated damages, for a total of approximately $15 million. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial and for remittitur. The Court approved the award of back pay and liquidated damages on the minimum wage claims and denied Defendant’s motion for a new trial and for remittitur. Plaintiffs argued that the jury’s finding of willfulness necessitated the liquidated damages award. Id . at 5. Defendants asserted that the jury could not award liquidated damages because Defendants demonstrated that they acted in good faith and that they had reasonable grounds for believing their actions were not in violation of the FMWA. The Court rejected Defendants’ arguments. The Court explained that based on clear and binding case law authorities that precluded a good faith determination after the jury found a willful violation of the FMWA, Plaintiffs were entitled to an award of liquidated damages equal to the amount of damages awarded by the jury for their claims that Defendants violated the FMWA. Id . at 6. The Court held that even if the jury had not returned a verdict of willfulness, the evidence was such that it still would not conclude that Defendants established good faith. Id . The Court also denied the motion for a new trial on the grounds that the facts and law supported the jury’s findings. (v) Kentucky Southern, et al. v. SCI Kentucky Funeral Services, 2021 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 209 (Ky. App. April 9, 2021). Plaintiff, a funeral director, filed a class action alleging that Defendant failed to pay all wages due in violation of Kentucky wage & hour laws. Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, and the trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling. Plaintiff contended that Defendant had an unwritten de facto policy of requiring its hourly wage funeral directors to work off-the-clock and to work without their statutorily mandated lunch and rest breaks. Id . at *4-5. The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court’s finding that there was insufficient evidence in the record to allow it to find that all members of the class were subject to this unwritten de facto policy or were damaged as a consequence of Defendant’s alleged violation of the policy. The Court of Appeals noted that Plaintiff thereby failed to meet the commonality requirement for class certification. The trial court also determined that Plaintiff only offered evidence that he was subject to an unwritten de facto policy requiring him to perform work without compensation and/or mandatory rest periods at the location in which he worked, and did not establish that Defendant had the same policy at all the different funeral home locations. For this reason, the trial court held that Plaintiff failed to establish typicality. The trial court also ruled that Plaintiff failed to meet his burden to establish that he would fairly and adequately protect the interests of the proposed class because the same de facto policies may not apply to the other class members. Based on its review of the record, the Court of Appeals found no err in the trial court’s rulings and affirmed the motion denying class certification.