- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Staggs v. Fuyao Glass Am., Inc.
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion addresses Plaintiffs' Pre-Discovery Motion for Conditional Certification of a collective action and for Court-Authorized Notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Fuyao Glass America, Inc. failed to pay overtime wages to certain current and former hourly, non-exempt production employees working at the Moraine, Ohio location. The motion seeks conditional certification of two groups: (1) employees who worked at least forty hours in any workweek during the past three years, and (2) employees paid in gift cards rather than wages for overtime hours. The Court considers whether to authorize notice to these potential collective action members.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Court should conditionally certify the lawsuit as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
- Whether the Court should authorize dissemination of notice and consent forms to potential opt-in plaintiffs.
- Whether the proposed notice and consent forms meet the standards of being timely, accurate, and informative as required by precedent.
- What procedures and scope should govern the notice process, including the production of class member information and the opt-in period.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989) | Trial courts have authority under FLSA to manage the process of joining additional parties and to issue court-supervised notice to potential class members. | The Court relied on this precedent to justify issuing court-authorized notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs and to guide the content and dissemination of such notice. |
| White v. Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp., 699 F.3d 869, 873 (6th Cir. 2012) | District court rulings on certification of FLSA collective actions are reviewed for abuse of discretion. | The Court applied this standard in its discretionary decision to grant conditional certification and authorize notice. |
| Theissen v. General Electric Capital Corp., 267 F.3d 1095, 1103, 1106-07 (10th Cir. 2001) | Defines the conditional certification stage as requiring plaintiffs to show other employees are similarly situated in job duties and employer treatment; distinct from merits evaluation. | The Court applied this standard to find Plaintiffs and putative class members similarly situated for conditional certification purposes. |
| Mooney v. Aramco Services Co., 54 F.3d 1207, 1214 (5th Cir. 1995) | Establishes a lenient, liberal standard for determining similarly situated employees at the conditional certification stage. | The Court employed this lenient standard to grant conditional certification. |
| Hipp v. Liberty National Life Insurance Co., 252 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2001) | Supports a liberal standard for measuring similarly situated employees in the conditional certification phase. | The Court cited this to reinforce the appropriateness of conditional certification on the facts presented. |
| Hardesty v. Litton's Mkt & Rest., Inc., No. 3:12-cv-60, 2012 WL 6046697, at *2 (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 5, 2012) | Example of court-authorized 60-day opt-in period for FLSA collective actions. | The Court referenced this precedent to support Plaintiffs' request for a 60-day opt-in period. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analyzed the Plaintiffs' motion under the two-tiered FLSA collective action certification framework. At the conditional certification stage, the Court applies a lenient standard to determine whether plaintiffs and putative class members are similarly situated in terms of job duties and employer treatment regarding overtime pay. The Court found that Plaintiffs' allegations and declarations sufficiently demonstrate that the Defendant’s employees share similar job duties and were subject to the same alleged policy of denying overtime pay. Hence, conditional certification is appropriate.
The Court further examined the proposed Notice and Consent to Join forms, concluding that they are timely, accurate, and informative as required by Hoffmann-La Roche. The forms adequately inform potential class members of the litigation, their rights to opt in voluntarily, and instructions for doing so.
To facilitate notice, the Court ordered Defendant to provide Plaintiffs' counsel with a list of putative class members including detailed contact information within 14 days. The Court authorized dissemination of the notice by mail and email within 20 days and permitted posting at Defendant’s facilities. A 60-day opt-in period was approved, with authorization for Plaintiffs’ counsel to send a reminder notice halfway through the opt-in period.
Holding and Implications
The Court's final decision is summarized as follows:
GRANTED Plaintiffs' Motion to Conditionally Certify Collective Action and For Court-Authorized Notice.
This ruling conditionally certifies the collective action under the FLSA and authorizes court-supervised notice to putative class members to opt into the lawsuit. The direct effect is to facilitate collective litigation on behalf of similarly situated employees alleging unpaid overtime. The opinion does not establish new legal precedent but applies established standards and procedures for FLSA collective action certification and notice.
Judge Thomas M. Rose
Judge Thomas M. Rose
ENTRY AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO CONDITIONALLY CERTIFY COLLECTIVE ACTION AND FOR COURT-AUTHORIZED NOTICE (ECF 19).This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Pre-Discovery Motion for Conditional Certification and Court Supervised Notice to Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). (ECF 19). Plaintiffs have moved the Court for an order conditionally certifying this lawsuit as a collective action and authorizing the dissemination of the Notice and Consent to Join form to the following current and former employees of Defendant:
All current and former hourly, non-exempt production employees of Defendant working in the Moraine, Ohio location who during the previous three years have worked at least forty hours in any workweek (the "FLSA Class" or the "FLSA Class Members").
- and -
All current and former hourly, non-exempt production employees of Defendant working in the Moraine, Ohio location who have worked any period of hours and have been paid for that work in the form of a gift card and not wages or the appropriate overtime wages (the "FLSA Gift Card Sub-Class" or the "FLSA Gift Card Sub-Class Members")
(ECF 19 PageID 152-53)
Plaintiffs seek an order conditionally certifying a collective action for unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), defined as:
All persons who are or have been employed by Self-Reliance as Direct Care staff in Ohio, or other job titles performing similar job duties, who did not receive premium overtime pay at a rate of not less than one and one-half times their regular rate of pay when they worked more than forty (40) hours in a workweek, at any time from August 25, 2012 through the entry of final judgment.
29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
The same section further provides:
An action .... may be maintained against any employer ... in any Federal or State Court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees for and [o]n behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated. No employee shall become a party plaintiff to any such action unless he gives his consent in writing to become such a party and such consent is filed in the court in which such action is sought.
29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
The collective action provisions of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), authorize a trial court to issue court-supervised notice to potential class members. In Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989), the Court reasoned that the class action provision of the FLSA conferred upon trial courts the authority to manage the process of joining additional parties. 493 U.S. at 169-73. District court rulings on certifications of FLSA class actions are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. White v. Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp., 699 F.3d 869, 873 (6th Cir. 2012).
There is a two-tiered process for notice to an FLSA class: first a conditional certification stage, followed by a decertification stage after the close of discovery. Id. In the conditional certification stage, a plaintiff's burden is to show the existence of other employees who appear to be similarly-situated in both their job duties and the employer's treatment of their entitlement to overtime pay. See, e.g., Theissen v. General Electric Cap. Corp., 267 F.3d 1095, 1103 (10th Cir. 2001); Mooney v. Aramco Services Co., 54 F.3d 1207, 1214 (5th Cir. 1995). This determination is distinct from the merits of the named plaintiffs' claims. Theissen, 267 F.3d at 1106-07. In the conditional certification stage, a liberal standard for measuring similarly-situated employees is used. Hipp, 252 F.3d at 1208. Accord Mooney v. Aramco Services Co., 54 F.3d 1207, 1214 (5th Cir. 1995) ("lenient standard").
In the instant case, Plaintiffs have brought their unpaid wage claims individually and on behalf of similarly situated employees, seeking conditional certification of and notice to members of a putative collective of Defendant and a further sub-Class. The allegations in the Complaint and Plaintiffs' declarations agree that Defendant's staff share similar primary job duties and responsibilities and are alleged to be victims of the same policy, decision and practice to deny them overtime pay. This suffices to consider Plaintiffs and the putative collective members and sub-Class members similarly situated for purposes of conditional certification.
Notice must be "timely, accurate, and informative." Hoffmann-La Roche, 493 U.S. at 172. Plaintiffs' proposed Notice and Consent to Join form is accurate and informative. Both the proposed Notice and Consent to Join form advises putative collective members of the pending litigation, describes the legal and factual bases of Plaintiffs' claims, informs collective members of the right to opt in and that participation in the lawsuit is voluntary, and provides instructions on how to opt in.
In order to accurately, efficiently, and quickly facilitate the Court-authorized Notice and Consent to Join form, the Court orders Defendant to produce to Plaintiffs' counsel a list of all putative class members or sub-Class members who have worked for Defendant at the Moraine, Ohio facility in the last three years, including their names, positions of employment, last-known mailing addresses, last-known telephone numbers, email addresses, work locations, and dates of employment. Defendant is to provide this information to Plaintiffs' counsel within 14 days of the Court's Order granting this Motion.
Courts have discretion in deciding how notice is disseminated. Plaintiffs' counsel is permitted to send within 20 days of the Order granting this Motion, the Court-authorized Notice and Consent Form via U.S. Mail and electronic mail to putative class members. Notice should also be posted at Self-Reliance facilities. Plaintiffs also request a 60-day opt-in period for the putative class. See, e.g., Hardesty v. Litton's Mkt. & Rest., Inc., No. 3:12-cv-60, 2012 WL 6046697, at *2 (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 5, 2012) (authorizing a 60-day opt in period). Additionally, Plaintiffs' counsel is authorized to send a second, identical copy of the Notice and Consent Form to members of the putative class 30 days into the opt-in period, reminding them of the deadline for the submission of the Consent Forms.
Plaintiffs' Motion to Conditionally Certify Collective Action and For Court-Authorized Notice is GRANTED.
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Wednesday, February 7, 2018.
s/Thomas M. Rose
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Alert