By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Mike Rosenblatt, and Anna Sheridan
Duane Morris Takeaways: On September 3, 2026, in Harris, et al. v. Shoe Show, Inc., No. 3:25-CV-00398 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 3, 2026), Judge Susan C. Rodriguez denied Plaintiffs’ pre-discovery motion for conditional certification of an FLSA collective action and granted Defendant’s emergency motion for expedited, single stage discovery. The decision joins the growing trend of courts declining to bifurcate FLSA discovery into conditional certification and post-conditional certification stages.
Case Background
Plaintiffs Benjamin Harris and Marticilla Roberts brought suit against Shoe Show, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Stands Act (“FLSA”). According to the Complaint, filed June 11, 2025, Defendant Shoe Show, Inc. allegedly failed to pay store managers for all overtime hours worked. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that they were required to communicate with co-workers and supervisors about work-related matters outside of the store while off-the-clock. The Complaint defined Plaintiffs’ proposed FLSA collective action as “all hourly-paid and overtime-eligible Store Managers, who worked over 40 hours in any workweek for Defendant” for the prior three plus years (the alleged lookback period was slightly longer than the typical three years for an FLSA claim due to an alleged tolling agreement).
On July 25, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a pre-discovery motion for conditional certification of a collective action under FLSA § 216(b). On July 28, 2025, Defendant filed a motion to expedite discovery and requested a stay on briefing on Plaintiffs’ pre-discovery motion for conditional certification. Defendant’s motion stated that Plaintiffs used “boilerplate declarations” that “call[ed] into question their evidentiary value.” Defendant also provided declarations from thirty store managers to counter Plaintiffs’ claims to demonstrate that their claims “are not commonly shared by the Company’s Store Managers.”
The District Court’s Ruling
In a 3-page opinion, Judge Rodriguez denied Plaintiffs’ pre-discovery motion for conditional certification and granted Defendant’s motion for expedited discovery. The Court was brief in its analysis, citing “the arguments, record, and applicable authority, including the text” of the FLSA. Op. at 1.
The Court primarily relied on the growing case law revisiting the so-called “two-step process” for certification of FLSA collective actions. Prior to 2021, in what is commonly referred to as the Lusardi approach, courts almost universally applied a two-step process to certification of FLSA collective actions, first requiring a plaintiff to make a modest factual showing that plaintiff was similarly situated to others, followed by a second stage with a more thorough examination of evidence with the benefit of discovery. See Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 118 F.R.D. 351 (D.N.J. 1987). In 2021, the Fifth Circuit in Swales, et al. v. KLLM Transport Services, LLC, 985 F.3d 430, 436 (5th Cir. 2021), rejected the two-step approach for evaluating motions for certification of collective actions, holding that district courts should “rigorously scrutinize the realm of ‘similarly-situated’ workers … at the outset of the case.” In 2023, the Sixth Circuit in Clark v. A&L Homecare & Training Center, LLC, 68 F.4th 1003 (6th Cir. 2023), likewise rejected the two-step approach, though introduced a new standard requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate a “strong likelihood” that other employees are “similarly-situated” to the plaintiff.
Though the Fourth Circuit has yet to weigh in on this issue, Judge Rodriguez cited the Fifth Circuit’s approach in Swales, the Sixth Circuit in Clark, and two district court decisions within the Fourth Circuit rejecting bifurcated certification under the FLSA. Op. at 2. See Hubbard v. Southwood Realty Co., No. 3:24-CV-00481, 2026 WL 823169 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 25, 2026); Mathews v. USA Today Sports Media Grp., LLC, 1:22-CV-1407, 2023 WL 3676795 (E.D. Va. Apr. 14, 2023).
Implications for Companies
When addressing FLSA collective action claims, corporate counsel should be cautioned against accepting Lusardi’s bifurcated approach without pushback and cite to Swales and Clark to slow down a plaintiff’s race to conditional certification. After Hubbard, the Harris decision is now the second district court opinion within the Fourth Circuit in 2026 to reject Lusardi and adopt a single, streamlined discovery approach for FLSA certification. While most circuits still use the Lusardi approach, the circuit split created by the Swales (5th Circuit), Clark (6th Circuit), and Richards, et al. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 149 F.4th 901 (7th Cir. 2025), rejecting Lusardi shows that momentum is moving away from bifurcated discovery.
In the Fourth Circuit in particular, companies can add Harris, in addition to Hubbard and Mathews,to their toolkit to strengthen their arguments against the two-step Lusardi approach. As with any circuit split, this latest trend against bifurcated discovery reinforces how critical it is for companies to understand the approach in the district where they are being sued, but the recent trend away from Lusardi should give companies the impetus in any jurisdiction for arguing against bifurcated discovery and rushing to conditional certification.