{"id":3195,"date":"2026-08-28T15:35:18","date_gmt":"2026-08-28T19:35:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=3195"},"modified":"2026-08-28T15:35:20","modified_gmt":"2026-08-28T19:35:20","slug":"the-class-action-weekly-wire-episode-162-flsa-conditional-certification-denied-by-colorado-federal-court-in-meal-and-rest-break-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2026\/08\/28\/the-class-action-weekly-wire-episode-162-flsa-conditional-certification-denied-by-colorado-federal-court-in-meal-and-rest-break-case\/","title":{"rendered":"The Class Action Weekly Wire \u2013 Episode 162: FLSA Conditional Certification Denied By Colorado Federal Court In Meal And Rest Break Case"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/08\/162-cover.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1024\" height=\"576\" src=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/08\/162-cover-1024x576.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-3196\" srcset=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/08\/162-cover-1024x576.png 1024w, https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/08\/162-cover-300x169.png 300w, https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/08\/162-cover-768x432.png 768w, https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/08\/162-cover-1536x864.png 1536w, https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/08\/162-cover.png 1920w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 767px) 89vw, (max-width: 1000px) 54vw, (max-width: 1071px) 543px, 580px\" \/><\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong><em>Duane Morris Takeaway:<\/em><\/strong><em> <\/em>This week\u2019s episode features Duane Morris partner Jerry Maatman and associate Brett Bohan with their analysis of Colorado federal court decision denying conditional certification of an FLSA collective action brought by nurses and medical staff over alleged meal and rest break violations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Check out today\u2019s episode and subscribe to our show from your preferred podcast platform: <a href=\"https:\/\/open.spotify.com\/show\/2HZP212kEycOPXPY7Qppzr\">Spotify<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/music.amazon.com\/podcasts\/a23249e0-d394-470c-ba27-b4d87dcf4381\/the-class-action-weekly-wire\">Amazon Music<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/podcasts.apple.com\/us\/podcast\/the-class-action-weekly-wire\/id1709589577\">Apple Podcasts<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/podcastindex.org\/podcast\/6626090\">Podcast Index<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/tunein.com\/radio\/The-Class-Action-Weekly-Wire-p3882927\/\">Tune In<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.listennotes.com\/podcasts\/the-class-action-weekly-wire-duane-morris-uQEYrwG7MOU\/\">Listen Notes<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.iheart.com\/podcast\/269-the-class-action-weekly-wi-124460701\/\">iHeartRadio<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.deezer.com\/us\/show\/1000307221\">Deezer<\/a>, and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@DMClassAction\">YouTube<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed is-type-video is-provider-youtube wp-block-embed-youtube wp-embed-aspect-16-9 wp-has-aspect-ratio\"><div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\n<iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"Ep. 162: FLSA Conditional Certification Denied By Colorado Federal Court In Meal And Rest Break Case\" width=\"525\" height=\"295\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/Pvi-soliq4s?list=PL7_wVzhLfJGZhCM_aBLi1LzHkcpxVSTQD\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share\" referrerpolicy=\"strict-origin-when-cross-origin\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe>\n<\/div><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong><em>Episode Transcript<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Jerry Maatman:<\/strong> Hello, everyone, and thank you for being here again for the next episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire. I&#8217;m Jerry Maatman, a partner at Duane Morris, and joining me today is my colleague, Brett Bohan, an associate in our Class Action Defense Group. Thanks so much for being on the podcast, Brett.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Brett Bohan:<\/strong> Thanks for having me, Jerry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Jerry:<\/strong> Today, we&#8217;re discussing a significant Fair Labor Standard Act decision out of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado; name of the case is <em>Lightner v. DaVita, Inc<\/em>. It was decided by Judge Nina Wang on August 21, 2026. The case involved allegations that the employer failed to properly compensate nurses and medical technicians for shorted rest breaks and interrupted meal breaks, resulting in alleged unpaid overtime under the FLSA. Let&#8217;s start with the background, Brett. What was this case about when you strip it down to its bare essentials?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Brett:<\/strong> Sure, Jerry. So, the plaintiff filed the lawsuit on behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees under the FLSA. The plaintiff specifically alleged that unpaid 30-minute meal breaks were frequently interrupted because nurses and technicians remained responsible for patient care, and that DaVita failed to pay for breaks lasting less than 20 minutes. Under Department of Labor regulations, breaks generally lasting between 5 and 20 minutes are compensable work time. The plaintiff claims that employees were required to clock out for these short breaks, and that the unpaid time reduced overtime compensation when employees worked more than 40 hours in a week. The plaintiff sought to represent current and former hourly paid nurses and technicians who provided direct patient care across DaVita facilities in 41 states.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Jerry:<\/strong> The decision at issue involved one where the plaintiff moved for conditional certification of a collective action, and the issue at the heart of that motion is whether or not the plaintiffs had shown sufficient evidence to conditionally certify a collective action and send notices to other workers about their right to potentially opt in to the litigation. Under Tenth Circuit precedent, district courts there use a two-step process. At the first stage, plaintiffs have a rather modest burden to show that they are similarly situated to other workers, and that the case could be managed on a representative basis. Historically, courts often grant conditional certification because the standard is known to be fairly lenient. But, as Judge Wang stressed in her ruling, certification is certainly not automatic. What evidence, in this case, did the plaintiff rely upon and supported their motion?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Brett:<\/strong> Yeah, so in the complaint, the plaintiff argued that nurses and technicians across DaVita facilities were similarly situated because they were all non-exempt hourly employees, were eligible for overtime, all used the same timekeeping system, and they were subject to the same meal and rest break policies. The plaintiff also asserted that DaVita maintained a company-wide practice of not paying employees for breaks shorter than 20 minutes. And to support those allegations, she relied on employee testimony regarding interrupted meal breaks and certain time records that showed a break lasting only 19 minutes. So, although this is a common claim in wage and hour cases, the issue became whether there was enough evidence showing that this allegedly unlawful practice existed across the entire proposed collective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Jerry:<\/strong> And as I understand it, the company essentially argued that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a common nationwide policy that cut the same way with respect to all members of the collective action, and that the evidence really was anecdotal and isolated, so therefore the plaintiff had not shown that workers across over a dozen states had experienced the same sort of uncompensated breaks. As I understand it, the court basically concluded that the plaintiff failed to even satisfy the relatively lenient first stage burden of showing that the members of the proposed collective action were victims of a common, uniform policy, and practice. What specifically did the judge identify in terms of deficiencies with the plaintiff&#8217;s case?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Brett:<\/strong> Yep, that&#8217;s right, Jerry. First, the judge stated that the complaint contained largely conclusory allegations. It asserted that the employees were subjected to an unlawful pay practice but provided very little detail regarding how the alleged practice operated across DaVita&#8217;s nationwide network workforce. Second, the court found the evidentiary record to be extremely thin. The plaintiff repeatedly relied on the records of a single employee showing a 19-minute meal break. Third, although many employees testified that meal breaks were interrupted, the court emphasized a critical distinction. Interrupted meal breaks did not automatically establish unpaid, compensable short breaks under the FLSA. What was missing was evidence showing employees routinely clocked back in within 20 minutes and were not paid for that time. The court essentially said that evidence of interruptions is not the same thing as evidence of an unlawful payment practice. One employee testified that she sometimes returned to work after only 5 or 10 minutes, but Judge Wang found that isolated testimony, combined with the single time record, was insufficient to establish a common nationwide policy affecting workers in 41 states.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Jerry:<\/strong> For me, this is a big win for an employer. The data analytics that we run every year in creating the <em>Duane Morris Class Action Review<\/em> <a href=\"https:\/\/online.flippingbook.com\/view\/1031844537\/16\/\">showed<\/a> over the last three years that plaintiffs won these first-stage conditional certification motions anywhere from 72 to 83% of the time. Last year was actually 75% of the time, so think about that \u2013 3 out of 4 cases are granted. In your mind, what was the reasoning of the judge in this case that won the case for the employer and prevented conditional certification?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Brett:<\/strong> Yeah, I think, Jerry, that the thing that the court really emphasized here was that although the burden for conditional certification is modest, it isn&#8217;t non-existent. And so, a plaintiff still needs to provide some meaningful evidence that connects the individual experiences of a plaintiff to a common company-wide practice. And here, the court refused to infer a nationwide policy from the scattered examples and unsupported assertions that the plaintiff gave.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Jerry:<\/strong> For me, the underlying message here is that courts are increasingly scrutinizing claims, especially on a nationwide basis, and large wage and hour collective actions, even at the first stage in the so-called lenient stage of considering these types of motions. Employers that I speak with often believe that because of the data analytics underlying the plaintiffs\u2019 victories across the United States, that sometimes it&#8217;s not even worthwhile to spend the time, effort, and money to oppose these sorts of requests, but certainly the decision is a reminder that in appropriate circumstances, when called to test the proof and the pleadings, plaintiffs don&#8217;t always win, and employers can actually turn the tables and beat a motion for conditional certification of a collective action. So, let&#8217;s talk about the practicalities, and the practical implications of this ruling \u2013 what should employers take away from it?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Brett:<\/strong> Employers should take away several things. So, they should continue to maintain accurate timekeeping records. One reason that DaVita prevailed here is that a plaintiff couldn&#8217;t point to broad evidence demonstrating a systemic violation. Employers should also review meal break and rest break procedures to ensure they comply with FLSA requirements. Specifically, breaks of 20 minutes or less generally must be paid, and employers should ensure their timekeeping systems are not inadvertently creating unpaid short break issues. Employers in healthcare face unique risks because patient care responsibilities often interrupt breaks. And here, the court did not determine that its practices were lawful. The judge expressly stated that she was not deciding the merits of the underlying FLSA claims. So, healthcare employers still should therefore examine whether employees are routinely interrupted during breaks, and whether interruptions are being tracked and compensated appropriately.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Jerry:<\/strong> Well, great discussion, Brett. The bottom line here is Judge Wang denied conditional certification because the plaintiff was unable to show that the employers, nurses, and technicians across 41 states were subject to a unifying common policy of denying compensation for breaks of less than 20 minutes. So, basically, the court interpreted the statute, 29 U.S.C., Section 216(b), to create a meaningful evidentiary threshold, even if it&#8217;s a relatively modest one. So, Brett, thanks so much for being here today and lending your thought leadership in this space, and thank you to our listeners for tuning in.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Brett:<\/strong> Thanks everyone for listening, and thanks, Jerry.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Duane Morris Takeaway: This week\u2019s episode features Duane Morris partner Jerry Maatman and associate Brett Bohan with their analysis of Colorado federal court decision denying conditional certification of an FLSA collective action brought by nurses and medical staff over alleged meal and rest break violations. Check out today\u2019s episode and subscribe to our show from &hellip; <\/p>\n<p class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2026\/08\/28\/the-class-action-weekly-wire-episode-162-flsa-conditional-certification-denied-by-colorado-federal-court-in-meal-and-rest-break-case\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;The Class Action Weekly Wire \u2013 Episode 162: FLSA Conditional Certification Denied By Colorado Federal Court In Meal And Rest Break Case&#8221;<\/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":[90],"tags":[82,39],"ppma_author":[30],"class_list":["post-3195","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-class-action-weekly-wire","tag-class-action-weekly-wire","tag-conditional-certification"],"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","author_category":"","last_name":"Defense","first_name":"Class Action","job_title":"","user_url":"","description":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3195","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=3195"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3195\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3197,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3195\/revisions\/3197"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3195"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3195"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3195"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=3195"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}