Class Action Complaint Alleging Violations of FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act) based on Misclassification of Store Managers and Consequent Failure to Pay Overtime Satisfied First-Tier’s “Lenient Standard” for Conditional Class Action Certification Florida Federal Court Holds
Plaintiff filed a class action against Starbucks alleging violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); the class action complaint asserted that Starbucks misclassified him (and other store managers) as exempt and failed to pay him overtime. Reed v. Starbucks Coffee Co., ___ F.R.D. ___ (S.D.Fla. April 23, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1]. According to plaintiff, a similar class action was filed over this issue in 2004 entitled Pendlebury v. Starbucks, which was settled in August 2008. Id., at 1-2. The present class action seeks overtime pay for store managers who worked for Starbucks on or after January 15, 2006, id., at 2. Plaintiff filed a motion with the district court for conditional certification of the litigation as a class action, id., at 1, and provided notices from five other individuals who consented to joining in the action since the class action complaint had been filed, id., at 2. The district court determined that conditional class action treatment was warranted and therefore granted plaintiffs’ conditional class action certification motion.
The district court explained that the Eleventh Circuit “has endorsed a two-tiered approach to certification of collective actions” under the FLSA. Reed, at 3 (citation omitted). The first stage employs “a fairly lenient standard” that requires the district court to determine whether the lawsuit is “suitable” for class action treatment. Id. This requires “some evidence that there are other employees of the defendant-employer who wish to opt-in the action.” Id. (citation omitted). The federal court found persuasive not only the five notices of consent to join filed in the present case, but “the fact that a previous suit resulted in 900 opt-in plaintiffs.” Id. The first stage requires also a showing that the members of the proposed class are “similarly situated,” id. In this regard, the district court found adequate plaintiff’s allegation “that there is a company-wide pay policy that results in all store managers being improperly classified as exempt and thus denied overtime compensation.” Id., at 4. The federal court therefore found that plaintiff had adequately established a basis for granting conditional class action certification to the lawsuit, id., at 4-5. Accordingly, the district court granted plaintiff’s motion and authorized the sending of notification to potential class members, id., at 5.
** 상기 내용은 무단 복제를 금합니다.
** 상기 내용에 따른 모든 Liability는 본인에게 있음을 알려드립니다.
** 추가 질문이 있는 경우에는 아래에 댓들을 달아주시면 회신드리겠습니다.
No. | Subject | Date | Views |
---|---|---|---|
12 | FLSA Status - Exempt vs. Non-Exempt? -- 4) COMPUTER Exemption 충족요건 | 2014.01.02 | 1173 |
11 | OT에 관하여 | 2012.11.19 | 1187 |
10 | IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO 2012 FSA PARTICIPANTS - FSA를 가입하셨나요? 어떻게 2012를 마무리해야 할까요? | 2012.11.30 | 1201 |
9 | Paystub에 Social Security Number를 Full로 사용하는것이 법에 저촉이 될까? | 2013.03.03 | 1212 |
8 | 주정부에 내는 세금과 주정부 혜택은 어떤 관련이 있을까? | 2013.06.08 | 1272 |
7 | 10 ways to limit holiday party liquor liability | 2012.12.04 | 1369 |
6 | FSA - Allowable Medical Expenses - 어떤 비용들이 해당이 될까요? | 2012.11.30 | 1381 |
5 | Hire할 때, Terminate 시킬 때, LOA 때 반드시 갖추어야 할 HR 서류 List (CA) | 2012.08.22 | 1387 |
4 | FLSA Status - Exempt vs. Non-Exempt? -- 2) ADMINISTRATIVE Exemption 충족요건 | 2014.01.02 | 2320 |
3 | FLSA Status - Exempt vs. Non-Exempt? -- 3) PROFESSIONAL Exemption 충족요건 | 2014.01.02 | 3692 |
2 | Unpaid Lunch Break & Paid Smoke Breaks? | 2011.11.30 | 6072 |
1 | FLSA Status-직원 급여를 Hourly로 혹은 Salary로 주는것은 회사 재량일까? | 2011.11.28 | 18128 |