FLSA Conditional Certification Standard Bites Plaintiffs

A district court in the Eastern District of Louisiana refused to conditionally certify a class of employees who accused their employer of intentionally underpaying and reducing hours from time records to avoid paying overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In Rowe, the named plaintiff and an opt-in plaintiff filed affidavits with their conditional certification motion, describing their personal experiences of having their working hours intentionally reduced and shorted, allegedly based on a policy and practice to save on labor costs and increase supervisor bonuses.

Applying the "fairly lenient standard" recognized in Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 118 F.R.D. 351 (D. N.J. 1987), the district court nonetheless held that conditional certification of an FLSA class was "not automatic," and that the lenient standard was "not toothless." Id., *3. Noting its obligation to refrain from "stirring up unwarranted litigation," id., * 2, the Rowe court found that a plaintiff seeking to conditionally certify a class must come forward with "substantial allegations of an unlawful decision, policy or plan" in order to conditionally certify the class (emphasis in original).

In this case, the plaintiffs' submissions fell short. Finding that at best the plaintiffs described potential FLSA violations relating to their individual circumstances, such individual allegations did not convert their claims into a sustainable class action on the record presented. For example, although the submissions suggested there were other employees who told the plaintiffs that they too had been shorted hours worked...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT