By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Shannon Noelle, and Olga A. Romadin
Duane Morris Takeaways: In Glidwell v. Autoneum N. Am., Inc., Case No. 2:24-CV-12805, 2026 WL 2621157 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 4, 2026), in a decision issued on September 4, 2026, Judge Robert J. White of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied Plaintiffs’ motion for court-facilitated notice to be distributed in a collective action alleging unpaid pre-shift and post-shift work in violation of the FLSA. Judge White found that Plaintiffs’ evidentiary basis — namely, 6 declarations, including from one of the named plaintiffs and 5 from opt-ins — were insufficient to demonstrate “a strong likelihood” that thousands of employees across four states were similarly situated.
Case Background
Plaintiffs Roger Glidwell, Jr. and Amy Kelly brought an action against Autoneum North America, Inc. (“Autoneum”), an automobile parts manufacturer, asserting state law and FLSA claims alleging that the Company violated applicable wage and hour laws by failing to compensate employees across six plants in four different states for pre-shift and post-shift work. Plaintiffs claimed that employees were required to clock in using Autoneum’s timekeeping system and to then do pre-shift work, including donning personal protective equipment (“PPE”) and attend meetings, and to do post-shift work by waiting for the next round of workers to start their shifts before clocking out. Id. 1031-33, 1040.Plaintiffs alleged that “Autoneum would round, edit and otherwise manipulate the Plaintiffs’ start and stop times despite using a timekeeping system that records exactly when employees punch in and out each day.” Id. at 1033. The Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ state law claims and only the FLSA claim remained at the time the Court was considering Plaintiffs’ Motion for Court-Facilitated Notice to Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs. Id.
The District Court’s Ruling
Judge White denied Plaintiffs’ motion finding that the 6 declarations submitted fell short of meeting the “strong likelihood” evidentiary standard for demonstrating that potential opt-ins are similarly situated and, finding further, that to approve notice — to thousands of employees across six plants in four different states — without such an evidentiary showing would be unfair. Judge White offered three bases for his decision to deny Plaintiffs’ motion.
First, the Court found that Plaintiffs did not meet their required evidentiary showing for court-approval of the notice because the 6 declarations (one from named Plaintiff Kelly and the rest from 5 opt-ins) did not rebut assertions made in the Complaint and in the Company’s opposition demonstrating a lack of uniformity in policies amongst the plants regarding time recording and overtime pay and as to collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) and non-CBA facilities subject to different grievance procedures. Though the Court agreed with Plaintiffs that declarations alone could potentially carry Plaintiffs’ burden, in the present case, it determined that the substance of the declarations could not overcome assertions in the Complaint and opposition briefing indicating that each plant used a different handbook or set calculation of work hours based on a CBA. The Court noted that the named Plaintiffs “offered little evidence to rebut that each facility had its own system for calculating time worked” and, as such, there was no “strong likelihood that the underpayment was attributable to a companywide policy.” Id. at 1038. Because of the evidence showing that each plant had different handbooks and work hour calculations and indicating that some were governed by CBAs while others were not, the Court also found that the Plaintiffs were subject to differing individualized defenses as well. Id. In sum, Plaintiffs’ declarations could not overcome other evidence in the record showing differences amongst employees at the plants proposed to make-up the collective action at issue.
Second, turning to the issue of fairness with respect to distribution of the notice, and citing Clark v. A&L Homecare and Training Ctr., LLC, 68 F.4th 1003 (6th Cir. 2023), for the principle that sending notice can easily expand the “ranks” of a collective action “a hundredfold” and “forc[e] a defendant to settle,” the Court concluded that approving dissemination of the notice also would be unfair on such a sparse evidentiary showing. Id. at 1040. The Court observed that “[h]ere, there are thousands of employees across six plants in four different states that would receive notice” which could “amount[] to solicitation of those employees to bring suits of their own” if such employees are not eligible to join the lawsuit. Id. From that observation, the Court concluded that, given the size and scope of the potential collective and the “the impact notice might have on the ranks of th[e] collective action,” further evidence” was needed “to show that potential opt-ins are similarly situated.” Id.
Third, and finally, the Court found that not only was named Plaintiffs’ evidence insufficient and sparse, but also it had notable shortcomings. Id. at 1041. Two of the declarants had ended their employment over three years before the complaint was filed, putting their claims outside the statute of limitations period, and rendering their declarations irrelevant to the action at hand. Id. Further, one of the declarants was an opt-in plaintiff in a different FLSA action based on similar claims against the Company as to its Oregon, Ohio factory and, therefore, the declarant could not participate in the action rendering her declaration irrelevant as well. Id. at 1041-42.In light of these additional deficiencies, the Court noted that it “only has four declarations across the six identified plants to rely on” which “further weaken[ed]” Plaintiffs’ position. Id. at 1042.
Implications for Companies
In defending FLSA collective actions, Companies should prioritize identifying evidence of differences amongst its locations or departments demonstrating different wage and hour computations or grievance processes early and often throughout the lifespan of the litigation. Though the conditional certification and notice authorization stages of court review are thought to be more lenient and preliminary, the Glidwell decision shows that the evidentiary showing is not a cursory one, at least in the Sixth Circuit, and provides fertile ground for employers to make an evidentiary showing of their own to take putative plaintiffs to task.