{"id":2860,"date":"2026-04-01T19:53:09","date_gmt":"2026-04-01T23:53:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=2860"},"modified":"2026-04-01T19:53:10","modified_gmt":"2026-04-01T23:53:10","slug":"three-theories-one-trimmed-down-class-court-certifies-class-and-collective-action-for-travel-time-and-bonus-program-claims","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2026\/04\/01\/three-theories-one-trimmed-down-class-court-certifies-class-and-collective-action-for-travel-time-and-bonus-program-claims\/","title":{"rendered":"Three Theories, One Trimmed Down Class: Court Certifies Class and Collective Action For Travel Time and Bonus Program Claims"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jennifer A. Riley,\u00a0Anna Sheridan, and Elisabeth Bassani<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duane Morris Takeaways:<\/em> <\/strong>On March 31, 2026, in Justin Lawrence, et al, v. Sun Energy Services LLC d\/b\/a\/ Deep Well Services, 2:23-CV-02155 (W.D. Pa, March 31, 2026), Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania certified, but narrowed<\/a>, a Rule 23 class action and FLSA collective action after narrowing the case to two of the three asserted theories and adding additional temporal restrictions. In a decision that threads the needle between plaintiffs\u2019 ambition and Rule 23 reality, this is a strong reminder that courts will certify only what can be proven with common evidence, and nothing more.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plaintiff Justin Lawrence (\u201cLawrence\u201d or \u201cPlaintiff\u201d) brought a hybrid action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (\u201cFLSA\u201d) and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act alleging that oilfield company Deep Well Services failed to properly compensate employees in three ways, including: (1) by failing to pay for pre-shift travel to out of town jobsites; (2) by failing to compensate time spent in mandatory pre-shift safety meetings; and (3) by  excluding the bonuses paid to eligible employees when calculating employees\u2019 rate of regular pay.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On October 15, 2024, the Court conditionally certified an FLSA collective action consisting of \u201ccurrent and former employees of Sun Energy Services LLC d\/b\/a Deep Well Services (\u201cDeep Well\u201d) who have worked in the United States as a Greenhat, Leadhand, Roughneck, or Snubbing Operator from [date certain three years prior to date of Notice<\/em>] to the present and were not paid for out of town travel, were not paid for the time spent attending pre-shift safety meetings, or who did not have the amount of any quarterly bonus included in the calculation of their regular rate of pay in determining their overtime rate of pay.\u201d Id.<\/em> at *4. One hundred and fifty-five former or current employees opted in to the collective action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court\u2019s Decision<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a detailed 17-page opinion, Judge Weigand considered whether to certify the New Mexico claims as a class action (and\/or to confirm final collective action certification under the FLSA) by analyzing the typicality, commonality, predominance, and superiority factors under each of the three theories put forth by Plaintiffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As an initial matter, the Court found that typicality was met for each claim. For Plaintiffs\u2019 Travel Time and Bonus Computation claim, the Court held that commonality, predominance, and superiority were also met. This was found over Deep Well\u2019s objection that the policy regarding payment of out-of-town travel changed in January 2025 allowing for payment of time spent driving to and from jobs but not time spent flying, making it difficult to calculate the amount of each class member\u2019s damages. The Court found however that \u201cdifferences in the amount of each class member\u2019s damages are insufficient to defeat a finding that common issues predominate.\u201d Id.<\/em> at *9. The Court similarly found that since each individual member\u2019s expected recover \u201cis likely too meager to incentivize filing an individual action,\u201d  \u201ca class action is the superior method for adjudicating the travel time claim.\u201d Id.<\/em> at *9.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the Court was not convinced by Plaintiffs\u2019 argument that \u201ccommon evidence \u2018binds together\u2019 the putative class members\u2019 claims regarding the pre-shift meetings.\u201d Id.<\/em> at *10. The Plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate a uniform policy of not paying employees for time spent in pre-shift safety meetings and relied only on deposition testimony that was contradicted elsewhere in the record. The Court also found that Plaintiffs would have to put forth individualized evidence to establish liability with respect to the safety meetings since Deep Well pays their employees an additional two hours of wages for every shift worked . The Court found that allowing the safety meeting claim to proceed as a class would result in countless mini-trials and found that Plaintiff failed to establish either superiority or predominance for the safety meeting claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even after finding that two of the claims met all required elements to be certified, the Court found that the class definition was overly broad. The Court added a time constraint, narrowing the class definition to leave out the safety meeting claims, added language to narrow the class to \u201conly those members whose claims are not barred by the applicable statute of limitations,\u201d and distinguished normal commute time from out-of-town commuting time requiring an overnight stay. \u00a0Id.<\/em> at 14.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mirroring the ruling for the Rule 23 class certification motion, the Court gave final certification for the collective action relative to the time travel claim and the bonus claim. The Court found that the members of the collective action were similarly situated. Id.<\/em> at 15. Although the Plaintiffs worked in four different positions, the Court found that they all performed similar enough functions to be found \u201csimilarly situated.\u201d Most importantly, however, the Court reasoned that the members of the collective action \u201cchallenge the same uniform employer practices\u201d of failing to pay for job time and failure to include the bonus into the regular rate of pay. Id.<\/em> at 16. Even with the \u201cconsiderably less stringent\u201d similarly situated requirements under 29 U.S.C. \u00a7 216(b), the Court concluded that Plaintiff had failed to meet his burden under \u00a7 216(b) with respect to the safety meeting claim as there was no company-maintained general practice. As a result, the Court narrowed the collective action to the same class definition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Implication for Companies<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Lawrence<\/em> decision shows that courts are not passively evaluating certification \u2013 they are scrutinizing it based on the evidentiary record. The Court\u2019s decision not to certify the class under the safety meeting theory shows that difference in how work is performed (across locations, supervisors, or time periods) can be powerful tools at certification, especially when it leads to individualized determinations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

For employers, the message is clear: attack overbreadth early and often. Even if certification is not defeated outright, narrowing the class can materially reduce exposure.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jennifer A. Riley,\u00a0Anna Sheridan, and Elisabeth Bassani Duane Morris Takeaways: On March 31, 2026, in Justin Lawrence, et al, v. Sun Energy Services LLC d\/b\/a\/ Deep Well Services, 2:23-CV-02155 (W.D. Pa, March 31, 2026), Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania certified, but … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Three Theories, One Trimmed Down Class: Court Certifies Class and Collective Action For Travel Time and Bonus Program Claims”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":583,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[42],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[30],"class_list":["post-2860","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-wage-hour-litigation"],"authors":[{"term_id":30,"user_id":583,"is_guest":0,"slug":"classactiondefense","display_name":"Class Action Defense","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2020\/10\/dmlogo.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2860","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/583"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2860"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2860\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2860"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2860"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2860"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=2860"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}