{"id":3214,"date":"2026-09-11T12:06:46","date_gmt":"2026-09-11T16:06:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=3214"},"modified":"2026-09-11T12:06:47","modified_gmt":"2026-09-11T16:06:47","slug":"court-grants-conditional-certification-of-mortgage-underwriters-collective-action","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2026\/09\/11\/court-grants-conditional-certification-of-mortgage-underwriters-collective-action\/","title":{"rendered":"Court Grants Conditional Certification Of Mortgage Underwriter\u2019s Collective Action"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Gregory Tsonis and Christian J. Palacios<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duane Morris Takeaways:\u00a0 <\/em><\/strong>In Brown v. Equity Prime Mortgage, LLC, Case No. 1:25-CV-1832, ECF No. 38 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 27, 2026), U.S. District Judge Michael L. Brown of the Northern District of Georgia granted <\/a>a plaintiff\u2019s motion for conditional certification of an FLSA collective action on behalf of a group of mortgage underwriters, alleging misclassification and unpaid overtime violations. \u00a0This decision is yet another reminder for employers of how lenient the evidentiary standard is in jurisdictions that apply the longstanding \u201ctwo step\u201d conditional certification analysis employed by many courts. \u00a0This decision further highlights the potential risk associated with classifying broad categories of employees as \u201cexempt\u201d for overtime purposes, while relying exclusively on the FLSA\u2019s administrative exemption (i.e. office workers that require the exercise of independent judgment on important matters).\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Plaintiff Shameen Brown worked for Defendant Equity Prime Mortgage, LLC (\u201cEPM\u201d), a national mortgage lender, as an underwriter between March 2023 and May 2024.  Order at 2.  On April 7, 2025, she filed a class and collective action complaint against her EPM alleging misclassification and unpaid overtime violations, specifically that she typically worked 60 or more hours per week but received no overtime compensation because EPM misclassified her and others as exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On September 12, 2025, Brown moved to conditionally certify a collective action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. \u00a7 216(b) of the FLSA, of \u201c[a]ll current and former employees of [EPM] working as Underwriters throughout the United States during the time period from three years prior to the filing of this Complaint until final resolution of [the] action.\u201d  Id<\/em>. at 2.  Brown submitted a proposed notice and requested permission to send it to potential collective members via mail, e-mail, and text message.  She also requested access to the last four digits of collective members\u2019 social security numbers and permission to send a reminder notice halfway through the notice period.  Order at 2-3.  EPM opposed the motion. Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

On August 27, 2026, the Court granted Plaintiff\u2019s motion for conditional certification.  At the outset of its decision, the Court observed that the Eleventh Circuit \u201csanctioned a two-stage procedure for district courts to effectively manage FLSA collective actions in the pretrial phase.\u201d  Order at 3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the first stage, or the \u201cnotice\u201d stage, the Court observed that it need only determine whether there existed other \u201csimilarly situated\u201d employees who should be notified of their ability to join the litigation, describing the applicable standard as \u201cnot particularly stringent\u201d and \u201cfairly lenient.\u201d  Id<\/em>. at 4.  Only at the second stage, typically after close of discovery, would Plaintiff be required to satisfy a higher evidentiary burden to prove that the collective action is similarly situated and could proceed.  Id<\/em>. at 4-5.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In support of conditional certification, Plaintiff submitted affidavits from other former underwriters describing their duties, alleging each underwriter was required to adhere to the same \u201cpredetermined underwriting guidelines\u201d without \u201cany authority to deviate\u201d from those guidelines.  Id<\/em>. at 6.  EPM argued that its underwriters were not similarly situated because underwriters worked on different loans, such as retail and wholesale, and were \u201clikely exercising more judgment than an underwriter working primarily on loans to individuals with steady W-2 income and low debt.\u201d  Id<\/em>. at 7.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court agreed with Plaintiff that a collective should be conditionally certified, reasoning that Defendant\u2019s position that underwriters were \u201clikely exercising more judgment\u201d did not contradict the \u201csimplicity\u201d of Plaintiff\u2019s claim that EPM\u2019s underwriters were required to \u201cstrictly adhere\u201d to the same \u201cpredetermined guidelines\u201d when reviewing loans, and that they were required to apply these guidelines without discretion.  Id<\/em>.  The Court also rejected Defendant\u2019s argument that different underwriters had different job descriptions, holding that the postings contained only \u201cminute differences\u201d and involved \u201csimilar duties.\u201d  Id<\/em>. at 7.  Finally, the Court rejected Defendant\u2019s argument that opt-in plaintiffs were not similarly situated because they used different job descriptions in their LinkedIn postings, quipping that \u201c[o]ne man\u2019s Trash Collector is another man\u2019s Sanitation Expert.\u201d Id<\/em>. at 8.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a result, the Court granted Plaintiff\u2019s motion for conditional certification and further approved the form of the proposed notice, authorizing it to be sent via mail, email, and text message.  Id<\/em>. at 9.  However, the court denied Plaintiff\u2019s request to send a reminder notice halfway through the notice period, concluding that such notices \u201cwould be redundant and \u2018could be interpreted as encouragement by the Court to join the lawsuit.\u201d\u2019  Id<\/em> at 10.  It also denied Plaintiff\u2019s request that Defendant be required to provide the last 4 digits of the collective members\u2019 social security numbers, citing privacy concerns.  Id<\/em>. at 11.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Takeaway for Employers<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As this case illustrates, employers will continue to face uphill battles at the \u201cconditional certification\u201d stage in jurisdictions that apply the lenient \u201ctwo step\u201d FLSA certification analysis. Although the Fifth, Sixth, and, most recently, the Seventh Circuit have rejected the majority rule in favor of more rigorous tests, most federal circuits, including the Eleventh Circuit, continue to utilize this plaintiff-friendly analysis.  Additionally, employers in all sectors, and in the mortgage industry specifically, should be mindful that classifying employees as exempt carries legal risk, particularly where the employer cannot easily demonstrate that the employees maintain meaningful discretion and exercise independent judgment on important matters as part of their job duties to satisfy the FLSA\u2019s administrative exemption.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Gregory Tsonis and Christian J. Palacios Duane Morris Takeaways:\u00a0 In Brown v. Equity Prime Mortgage, LLC, Case No. 1:25-CV-1832, ECF No. 38 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 27, 2026), U.S. District Judge Michael L. Brown of the Northern District of Georgia granted a plaintiff\u2019s motion for conditional certification of an FLSA collective … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Court Grants Conditional Certification Of Mortgage Underwriter\u2019s Collective Action”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":575,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[42],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[7,8,105],"class_list":["post-3214","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-wage-hour-litigation"],"authors":[{"term_id":7,"user_id":575,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gmaatman","display_name":"Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/maatmangerald-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Maatman Jr.","first_name":"Gerald L.","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/geraldmaatman.html","description":"Read Gerald's bio.<\/a>"},{"term_id":8,"user_id":577,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gtsonis","display_name":"Gregory Tsonis","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/tsonisgreg-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Tsonis","first_name":"Gregory","job_title":"","user_url":"","description":"Read Gregory's bio.<\/a>"},{"term_id":105,"user_id":677,"is_guest":0,"slug":"cpalacios","display_name":"Christian Palacios","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2023\/12\/PalaciosChristian-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Palacios","first_name":"Christian","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/christianpalacios.html","description":"Read Christian's bio.<\/a>"}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3214","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\/575"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3214"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3214\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3217,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3214\/revisions\/3217"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3214"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3214"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3214"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=3214"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}