18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

82 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition A. Cases Certifying Or Refusing To Certify FLSA Collective Action Claims (i) First Circuit Drake, et al. v. Tufts Associated HMO, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125814 (D. Mass. Feb. 12, 2021). Plaintiff, a utilization review nurse, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant misclassified utilization review nurses as exempt employees and thereby failed to pay them overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, and the Court granted the motion. Plaintiff sought conditional certification of a collective action consisting of “all review employees who reviewed members’ clinical/medical information to determine whether the requested products, services or benefits were ‘medically necessary,’ consistent with Tufts’ predetermined guidelines and who were paid less than $100,000 per year prior to January 1, 2020, and less than $107,432 per year after January 1, 2020." Id . at *9. The Court noted that although the proposed collective action members had 14 different job titles, Plaintiff offered evidence that they all performed similar job duties and were subject to Defendant’s uniform policy of treating utilization employees as exempt from the FLSA requirements. The Court further determined that the deposition testimony suggested that even with different job titles, utilization employees all performed the same general duties. Plaintiff also submitted job descriptions for positions in the proposed collective action that indicated that those positions included making medical-necessity and benefits determinations based on Defendants’ guidelines and policies. Id . at *10. Accordingly, the Court found that Plaintiff made the requisite showing necessary to demonstrate that Plaintiff was similarly-situated to the members of proposed collective action. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion. Gardner, et al. v. Fallon Health & Life Insurance Co. , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186573 (D. Mass. Sept. 29, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of health insurance utilization review nurses, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant misclassified them as exempt employees and thereby failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, which the Court granted. Plaintiffs contended that in reviewing health insurance claims under Defendant’s policies, nurses had the authority to approve health insurance benefit requests that matched predetermined criteria, but they lacked the authority to deny health insurance benefit requests that did not match the predetermined criteria. Id . at *3. In support of their motion, Plaintiffs and two opt-in Plaintiffs submitted declarations that stated that their job consisted of reviewing clinical information to determine whether the information met established criteria for approving insurance benefit requests. Id. at *4. Plaintiffs further contended that Defendant’s guidelines for approving coverage were "comprehensive and detailed a course of action for nearly every contingency" encountered. Plaintiffs alleged that they regularly worked over 40 hours in a workweek without being paid overtime compensation. Id . at *6. Plaintiffs also submitted internal documents that corroborated Plaintiffs’ assertions that they evaluated requests using set criteria, could approve requests when the criteria were met, and referred the requests to a medical director when the criteria were not met. Id . at *6. The Court found that Plaintiffs met their burden to establish that they were similarly-situated for purposes of conditional certification. The Court determined that Plaintiff sufficiently established that Defendant classified all nurses as salaried employees exempt from overtime pay under the FLSA, that they regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, and that they shared common job qualifications, skills, and duties. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Hogan, et al. v. Instore Group , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4395 (D. Mass. Jan. 11, 2021). Plaintiff, a vendor, filed a class action alleging that Defendant, a contractor with retailers and manufacturers to provide labor for certain retail services, misclassified vendors as independent contractors and thereby failed to pay them overtime compensation and minimum wages in violation of state wage & hour laws. Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23, which the Court granted. Plaintiff sought to certify a class of “all vendors or vendor associates in Massachusetts since January 6, 2014." Id . at *61. First, the Court held that the numerosity requirement was met, as Defendant had identified over 200 vendor associates during the applicable time period, thereby rendering joinder impracticable. As to the commonality requirement, the parties agreed that vendor associates performed retail services, and all class members were “vendors” or “vendor associates.” Id . Defendant argued that since vendors and vendor associates were all placed in different retail locations, individual question regarding each retailer or manufacture would defeat commonality. However, the Court found that Defendant relied on the same vendor associate agreement and applied the same general policy to its