Articles Discussing Wage & Hour Class Actions

In many suits filed as collective actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), individuals hoping to join the action as opt-in plaintiffs submit consents to join the lawsuit even before the named plaintiff moves for conditional certification of the collective. Companies and courts are often unsure how to treat these “putative opt-in” participants before the court certifies any collective action: Are they subject to discovery? If the matter is settled, must they be included? If summary judgment is granted on the named plaintiff’s claims, what happens to the claims of the putative opt-ins? Are they dismissed? With or without prejudice?

It is a party that most employers don’t believe is a lot of fun: a FLSA collective action party. In a case of first impression, the Eleventh Circuit addressed the question of whether an opt-in plaintiff is required to do anything beyond filing a written consent to become a party plaintiff in a collective action under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §216(b).

In a case for minimum wage and overtime claims, the Eleventh Circuit joined the D.C., Second, Third, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits in holding that a state-law Rule 23 class action may be maintained in the same proceeding as a Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) collective action. Calderone, et. al. v. Scott, No. 2:14-cv-00519-JES-CM (11th Cir. Sept. 28, 2016).

Today the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling in Morris v. Ernst & Young, dealing a surprising blow to the enforceability of class and collective action waivers in employment arbitration agreements. More specifically, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the view of the National Labor Relations Board (beginning with the NLRB’s D.R. Horton decision) that it is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) for an employer to condition employment on an employee signing an arbitration agreement that waives the employee’s ability to pursue claims on a class or collective basis and instead requires that all claims be resolved on an individual basis in arbitration.

On April 21, 2016, Uber tried to buy its peace from two class actions in a $100 million settlement with 385,000 putative class members. See O’Connor v. Uber Technologies Inc., 3:13-cv-03826 (N.D. Cal.); Yucesoy v. Uber Technologies Inc., 3:15-cv-00262 (N.D. Cal.). However, as of July 14, 2016, the class actions still remain open pending court approval of the settlement.

recent New York State Supreme Court decision raises the bar for certifying an “opt out” class of unpaid interns seeking minimum or other wages, and provides valuable guidance for employers facing challenges to their unpaid internship programs. Rodriguez v. 5W Public Relations, Index No. 156571/14 (July 26, 2016). In Rodriguez, Justice Cynthia Kern denied class certification to named plaintiff Kristina Rodriguez and a putative class of individuals who interned with a New York City public relations firm. Rodriguez alleged that, since 2008, she and others were misclassified as unpaid interns when they were actually employees entitled to minimum wage pursuant to the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) §§ 663 and 198.

In a case that could be of significant benefit to employers in California and elsewhere around the country, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a ruling that plaintiffs failed to satisfy the “commonality” requirement essential to a collective action on their wage-hour claim where they had the authority to edit the time entries that served as the basis for their claim. Coleman v. Jenny Craig, Inc., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 7164 (April 6, 2016).

In a case for overtime compensation for time spent by workers putting on and taking off protective gear, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 6-2 ruling has upheld the use of representative sampling as evidence for common claims among the class action plaintiffs, workers killing hogs and trimming pork products at processing plants in Iowa. Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, No. 14-1146 (Mar. 22, 2016).

In a case for overtime compensation for time spent by workers putting on and taking off protective gear, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 6-2 ruling has upheld the use of representative sampling as evidence for common claims among the class action plaintiffs, workers killing hogs and trimming pork products at processing plants in Iowa. Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, No. 14-1146 (Mar. 22, 2016).

On Tuesday, March 22, 2016, the United States Supreme Court affirmed a $5.8 million dollar judgment against Tyson Foods Inc. in a class and collective action filed by workers claiming uncompensated time donning and doffing time. Contrary to what many predicated given the trend in class action rulings, the Court upheld the workers reliance on statistical analysis that used average time estimates to determine overtime owed for class recovery.

Executive Summary: Today, the U.S. Supreme Court held that when an employer fails to create accurate time records, courts may rely on expert time studies not only to determine unpaid hours of work, but also to determine the underlying issue of predominance necessary to certify a class. The Court’s opinion declined to restrict the use of damage calculations based on statistical evidence, and said the use of such methods in litigation can be reviewed by courts on a case-by-case basis.

In concluding that the proper standard for certifying Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective actions is whether the plaintiffs are “similarly situated,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled on March 2, 2016, that the Seventh Circuit’s application of the stricter Federal Rule 23 class action standard to an FLSA collective action was inappropriate. According to the Sixth Circuit in Monroe v. FTS USA, LLC and UniTek USA, LLC, Congress did not import the Rule 23 predominance requirement into the FLSA, and doing so “would undermine the remedial purpose of FLSA collective actions.”

On February 1st, the EEOC announced it would begin requiring employers to submit information on employee wages and work hours broken down by gender, race and EEO-1 category as part of its annual EEO-1 reporting process.

In recent years, one tactic for attempting to defeat wage and hour class and collective action lawsuits class action lawsuits has been to offer the named plaintiffs full relief for their individual claims in the case. Even if the offer is declined, the theory goes, the offer renders those plaintiffs’ claims moot. And under the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling in Genesis Healthcare v. Symczyck (.pdf), if the named plaintiff’s claims become moot before a class is certified, the case goes away. No class representatives, no class, case dismissed.