Author: Class Action Defense

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Natalie Bare, and Harrison Weimer

Duane Morris Takeaways: A recent ruling by Judge Joshua Wolson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania highlights important distinctions in how courts analyze conditional certification motions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and class certification motions under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In Fayad v. City of Philadelphia, Case No. 23-CV-32 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 18, 2024), the Court conditionally certified plaintiff’s FLSA overtime claims on behalf of a proposed collective action of paralegals at the City of Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, but denied Rule 23 class certification of the same claims under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (“PMWA”). According to the Court, conditional certification was appropriate because the District Attorney’s Office had a uniform policy of classifying paralegals as administratively exempt under the FLSA and therefore not paying overtime wages. However, the same evidence fell short of clearing the higher hurdle posed by the predominance requirement of Rule 23. The decision reminds employers to factor these differing standards into their litigation strategy.

Case Background

On January 4, 2023, Plaintiff Marybelle Fayad, a former paralegal for the City of Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, sued her former employer, alleging that it misclassified paralegals and those with similar job duties as exempt and failed to pay them overtime wages in violation of the FLSA and the PMWA.

Plaintiff moved for conditional certification under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the FLSA and for class certification of the PMWA claims under Rule 23 based on deposition testimony from Unit supervisors, job descriptions, company policies, and declarations of putative plaintiffs establishing that the District Attorney’s Office uniformly classified paralegals (and others with similar job duties) as exempt. In opposing both motions, the District Attorney’s Office argued that due to the paralegals’ varying job duties, responsibilities, working conditions, hours, shifts, and units, they were not similarly situated and individualized issues would predominate.

The Court’s Ruling

On March 18, 2024, Judge Wolson granted Plaintiff’s FLSA conditional certification motion, but denied her Rule 23 class certification motion, explaining that, “Rule 23 class certification and FLSA collective action certification are fundamentally different creatures.” Id. at 20.

While Judge Wolson declined to include non-paralegals with “substantially similar job duties” in the collective action membership, he found that Plaintiff met her relatively light burden to make a “modest factual showing” that the paralegals were “similarly situated” because the “evidence shows the DAO has a policy of classifying paralegals as administratively exempt under the FLSA, and that it therefore fails to pay the paralegals overtime.” Id. at 20-21. The Court also noted that it would reach the same result applying a heightened intermediate standard.

Judge Wolson opined that Rule 23, however, requires more; specifically, it requires the Court to conduct a “rigorous assessment” of the available evidence and the methods by which the plaintiff proposes to use that evidence to prove the requirements of Rule 23, including the requirement that “questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.” Id. at 22.

The Court explained that showing predominance required Plaintiff to “proffer class-wide evidence to show that a) the DAO improperly classified paralegals under the PMWA and b) the paralegals worked overtime hours.” Id. According to the Court, Plaintiff did the former but not the latter.  Specifically, Plaintiff did not “proffer common proof to show that the DAO’s paralegals worked over forty hours in a given week.” Id. As a result, Judge Wolson concluded “individual issues will predominate” because there would be no way of knowing each paralegals hours worked without individual inquiry. Id.

The Court found Plaintiff’s testimony from one Unit supervisor fell short of the “common evidence” of hours the paralegals worked required to show predominance under Rule 23 because the testimony did not apply to all 200 paralegals employed by the District Attorney’s Office. This single supervisor’s testimony was not common evidence to prove injury in fact to all paralegals. Id.

The Court also explained that the common proof “doesn’t have to be time records, but it has to be ‘sufficient to show the amount of the employees’ work as a matter of just and reasonable inference.’” Id. Plaintiff offered no alternate to time records; rather, as the Court put it: “She just asks me to draw an inference from the absence of records.” Id. The Court clarified that demonstrating predominance does not require a plaintiff “to prove the measure of each paralegal’s damages,” but rather the plaintiff “must be able to demonstrate the fact of damage (meaning injury or impact) on a class-wide basis.” Id.

Implications For Employers

The Fayad decision underscores the low burden that plaintiffs must typically meet to demonstrate that their proposed FLSA plaintiffs are “similarly situated” for purposes of conditional certification. As we reported in the Duane Morris Class Action Review [https://blogs.duanemorris.com/classactiondefense/2024/01/09/it-is-here-the-duane-morris-class-action-review-2024/], courts granted 75% of FLSA conditional certification motions in 2023.

Employers facing both class and collective actions in the same litigation should be proactive and strategic in managing the timing of discovery and motion practice in light of the differences in how courts will analyze FLSA conditional certification motions versus Rule 23 class certification motions. The decision also provides a helpful analysis for employers opposing class certification of misclassification claims in cases where plaintiffs offer no common method of providing overtime work

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Brandon Spurlock, and Nicolette J. Zulli

Duane Morris Takeaways: As the threat of wage & hour collective actions continue to pose litigation risks for businesses, especially given the typically low threshold to obtain FLSA condition certification, a recent Georgia federal court opinion offers a positive lesson for companies facing such actions where plaintiffs are unable to show that other similarly situated workers want to join the lawsuit. In Parker v. Perdue Foods, LLC, No. 5:22-CV-268, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45542 (M.D. Ga. Mar. 14, 2024), Judge Tilman E. Self of the U.S. District Court for Middle District of Georgia denied Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification in an FLSA 216(b) collective action on the grounds that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that other similarly situated workers desired to opt-in to the lawsuit.

Case Background

Perdue, “the third largest boiler chicken company in the country,” contracts with approximately 1,300 so-called “growers” — farmers who raise chickens for Perdue — throughout the nation.  Id. at *2. Parker, a former grower for Perdue, filed a lawsuit seeking relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). He claimed that growers were entitled to at least the federal minimum wage and overtime pay, which Perdue did not pay them. Id. at *3. Specifically, Parker alleged that he often worked over 60 hours per week, was expected to be on call 24 hours a day, and, after paying for expenses, he was making a fraction of the federal minimum wage. Id. at *2 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Parker claimed that he and other growers nationwide were misclassified as independent contractors, when they were in fact employees. Id. at *3.

The parties engaged in six months of targeted discovery on conditional certification issues, including extensive written discovery, a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, and the depositions of Parker and the sole opt-in plaintiff to the action. Id.

Plaintiffs sought to conditionally certify a proposed collective action that included at least 1,300 growers who raised chickens for Perdue under a Perdue Poultry Producer Agreement in the past three years. Id. at *5. Plaintiffs also sought the Court’s approval for a proposed notice to be sent to potential collective action members who met this definition, as well as Perdue’s disclosure of a list of individuals in the potential collective action so that notice could be sent. Id. at *6.

Perdue objected to conditional certification because, among other things, Plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that other growers in the nationwide collective action wished to opt-in. Id. Plaintiffs argued that the opt-in consent filed by the only opt-in plaintiff indicated that other growers desired to join the suit and would join if given notice, and that one or two opt-in plaintiffs are sufficient to permit conditional certification in the Eleventh Circuit. Id.

The Court’s Decision

Judge Self agreed with Perdue. He held that Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of showing that there were a substantial number of growers who desired to opt-in to the collective action. Id. at *14. Accordingly, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification and dismissed the opt-in plaintiff from the suit without prejudice. Id.

The Court addressed the merits of Perdue’s objection under the first prong of the analysis of Dybach v. Florida Dep’t of Corrections, 942 F.2d 1562, 1567 (11th Cir. 1991). Dybach held that Plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that the individuals in the proposed collective action (1) “desire to opt-in” to the collective action and (2) are “similarly situated.” Because the Court found Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden on the first prong, it did not reach the issue of whether members of the proposed collective action were similarly situated. Id. at *6-7.

Importantly, the Court applied a somewhat heightened standard of scrutiny in this case because the Parties had already engaged in six (6) months of discovery focused on conditional certification. Id. at *7. The Court explained that although it typically applies a fairly lenient standard for conditional certification, the rationale for that standard disappears once a plaintiff has had an opportunity to conduct discovery. Id. In other words, the standard may become less lenient as the litigation progresses. Id.

The Court also highlighted that despite Plaintiffs having six months to conduct discovery and gather evidence for conditional certification, the only evidence they presented suggesting that other growers desired to opt-in to the case was (i) a single opt-in and (ii) statements from Parker and the opt-in that they believe other growers would be interested in joining the lawsuit. Id. at *10. Specifically, the Court noted that “one opt-in is insufficient to show substantial interest” in a proposed collective action “of over 1,300 individuals in 11 locations in nine (9) states across the country, even under the most lenient of standards.” Id. (emphasis added).

In addition to being unpersuaded by Plaintiffs’ position, which aimed to establish a bright line rule regarding the number of opt-in consents sufficient to satisfy its burden, the Court found that the declarations filed by Parker and the opt-in (stating that they believe other growers would be interested in joining the collective action) were speculative and thus insufficient. Id. at *11-12. Furthermore, the Court noted that in their depositions, both Parker and the opt-in conceded that they were not aware of any growers who wish to join the action. Id. at *12.

In the end, the Court opined that “[b]ottom line: two out of 1300+ just isn’t enough” for conditional certification. Id. at *13.

Implications For Employers

Perdue Foods provides specific and valuable insight for employers on how best to defend against conditional certification in cases where (1) the parties have engaged in discovery on conditional certification issues; and (2) the number of opt-ins who have consented to the action are nominal in comparison to the size of the proposed collective action. The decision provides a roadmap for employers as to FLSA conditional certification following the parties’ engagement in extensive pre-certification discovery targeted toward conditional certification. Namely, that the court may apply a heightened standard of scrutiny in such circumstances, thereby requiring Plaintiffs to show that more than just “one or two” opt-ins are interested in joining the action.