{"id":668,"date":"2023-07-14T16:06:38","date_gmt":"2023-07-14T20:06:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=668"},"modified":"2023-07-14T16:06:38","modified_gmt":"2023-07-14T20:06:38","slug":"not-again-no-more-notices-north-carolina-federal-court-denies-conditional-certification-in-duplicative-flsa-collective-action","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2023\/07\/14\/not-again-no-more-notices-north-carolina-federal-court-denies-conditional-certification-in-duplicative-flsa-collective-action\/","title":{"rendered":"Not Again \u2013 No More Notices: North Carolina Federal Court Denies Conditional Certification In Duplicative FLSA Collective Action"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Alex W. Karasik and Shaina Wolfe<\/strong><\/p>\n

Duane Morris Takeaways:<\/em><\/strong> In Emmanuel Jean-Francois et al. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., et al., No. 7:22-CV-63, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118136 \u00a0(E.D.N.C. July 10, 2023), a federal district court in North Carolina denied<\/a> plaintiffs\u2019 motion for conditional certification of an FLSA collective action, holding that the collective action they sought to certify was duplicative to the conditionally certified collective actions in two other pending cases. <\/em><\/p>\n

This decision is well worth a read for companies who are confronted with numerous collective action lawsuits containing similar alleged violations of wage and hour laws. <\/em><\/p>\n

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

Three employees (\u201cPlaintiffs\u201d) sued their employer, Smithfield Fresh Meats Corp. (\u201cSmithfield\u201d), and three of its sister companies (collectively \u201cDefendants\u201d) for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (\u201cFLSA\u201d), and specifically, for failing to include a \u201cresponsibility bonus\u201d in their pay when calculating overtime. Id.<\/em> at 1. During COVID-19, Plaintiffs received a \u201cresponsibility bonus,\u201d which entitled them, as hourly employees, to a bonus of \u201c$5 per hour for all regular hours worked up to and including forty in a workweek,\u201d between April 1, 2020 and October 31, 2020. Id.<\/em> at 3. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants underpaid them for overtime pay during the period between April 1, 2020 and October 31, 2020. Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

Plaintiffs moved to certify a collective action of a similarly situated group of 8,000 employees who were not properly compensated by Defendants for overtime work performed. Id.<\/em> at 1. Defendants opposed the motion for conditional certification and argued, among other things, that the proposed collective action could not be certified because it was duplicative to two other cases entitled Canas<\/em> and Winking<\/em>. Id.<\/em> at 2. The parties in Canas<\/em> and Winking <\/em>had recently reached agreements to settle the FLSA claims concerning the same responsibility bonus for employees and notices to opt-in plaintiffs who opted into the settlement had already been distributed. Id.<\/em> at 2-3.<\/p>\n

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

The Court agreed with Defendants and denied Plaintiffs\u2019 motion for conditional certification. Id.<\/em> at 11. Significantly, the Court found that the Canas<\/em> action encompassed claims identical to the claims Plaintiffs alleged in Jean-Francois<\/em>. Id.<\/em> at 11.<\/p>\n

The Court explained that, \u201c[i]n Canas<\/em>, the collective [action members] settled claims against Smithfield (including employees in North Carolina) based on the same facts and during the same time period.\u201d Id.<\/em> In Canas<\/em> v. Smithfield Packaged Meats Corp.<\/em>, No. 1:20-CV-4937 (N.D. Ill.), some employees brought a collective action lawsuit for violations of the FLSA against Smithfield, one of its sister companies, and another company. Id.<\/em> at 2. On September 13, 2021, the judge in Canas<\/em> approved a settlement between \u201cthe FLSA settlement class plaintiffs who opted into the settlement\u201d and the two Smithfield companies concerning the responsibility bonus. Id.<\/em> at 2–<\/em>3. The settlement included employees who worked in North Carolina. Id.<\/em> at 3.<\/p>\n

The Court further explained that Plaintiffs were already part of the collective action that received notice as part of the Canas<\/em> collective action, and that the scope of the Canas<\/em> collective action included every potential opt-in plaintiff in the current proposed collective action at issue in Plaintiffs\u2019 motion. Id.<\/em> at 9-10. Instead of certifying another collective action, the Court opined that Plaintiffs\u2019 remedy was \u201cto proceed with their action as an individual action or request to be paid now what they would have received had they submitted a claim for from the Canas<\/em> reserve fund.\u201d Id.<\/em> at 10-11. For these reasons, the Court denied Plaintiffs\u2019 motion for conditional certification.<\/p>\n

Implications For Employers <\/strong><\/p>\n

In FLSA collective actions, it is not uncommon for a series of cascading lawsuits to be filed against the same company, especially in scenarios when employees in scattered locations may independently retain their own counsel. However, it can be distracting for a business to have its workforce receive multiple notifications providing opportunities to join lawsuits against their employer, especially when the lawsuits may appear to be similar. This is an excellent ruling for employers to use when they are confronted with multiple, duplicative FLSA collection action lawsuits. Accordingly, businesses involved in wage and hour litigation would be wise to keep this ruling tucked away.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Alex W. Karasik and Shaina Wolfe Duane Morris Takeaways: In Emmanuel Jean-Francois et al. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., et al., No. 7:22-CV-63, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118136 \u00a0(E.D.N.C. July 10, 2023), a federal district court in North Carolina denied plaintiffs\u2019 motion for conditional certification of an FLSA collective action, holding … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Not Again \u2013 No More Notices: North Carolina Federal Court Denies Conditional Certification In Duplicative FLSA Collective Action”<\/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":[37],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[30],"class_list":["post-668","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-class-certification-motions"],"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\/668","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=668"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/668\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=668"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=668"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=668"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=668"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}