Atlanta Employment Attorneys Blog
In Fair Labor Standards Act lawsuits, there is no such thing as a class action. Instead, the FLSA allows similarly situated workers who have been harmed by FLSA violations to pursue something known as a “collective action.” FLSA collective actions often can be complex and nuanced. That is why, whether you are a worker seeking to pursue a collective action or an employer facing a potential collective action, it is wise to consult an experienced Atlanta collective action lawyer to discuss your situation and your options.
Any group of workers’ success in a collective action involves correctly identifying (and pleading) all the elements the law requires, and then meeting those elements’ standards.
A misclassification case from South Georgia provides valuable insights into these elements and standards. The defendant was a chain of retail stores. The lead plaintiff was an “inside” salesperson whose job was to sell John Deere equipment and machinery.
According to the salesman’s complaint, he and several of his colleagues “regularly work over 40 hours in a workweek, and often upwards of 60 hours per week.” The employer classified the salespeople as exempt employees. Due to “long workweeks and low commissions, Defendants’ salespeople regularly earn less than one and one-half times the federal minimum wage for all hours worked,” according to the lawsuit.
The salesperson’s lawsuit contained a procedural “wrinkle”: the employer did not oppose his motion for conditional certification. It is essential to understand that a court will not automatically grant an unopposed motion; the party making the motion must still have certain essentials in their motion papers.
The Eleventh Circuit’s Two-Part Approach
In reviewing the salesman’s motion, the district court reminded readers that, in the Eleventh Circuit, courts follow a “two-part approach to notice and certify an FLSA collective class.”
In the first step, the court reviews the plaintiff’s papers to decide whether or not a collective should be “conditionally certified.” To meet this burden, the plaintiff must demonstrate to the court that a “reasonable basis” exists for his claim that there are other similarly situated employees who wish to opt in.”
The district courts use a “fairly lenient” standard for deciding whether or not a reasonable basis exists.
The second part of the process is more demanding and requires more evidence. If the court finds that the various plaintiffs’ situations involve disparate facts or employment settings, then that may trigger a rejection of the collective action. If the employer has an affirmative defense that applies to some but not all of the would-be collective members, that might trigger a rejection of the lawsuit as a collective action.
One of the biggest keys to successfully obtaining certification of a collective is proving that all members of the collective are “similarly situated.” The FLSA itself does not precisely define what level of similarity a would-be collective must have, and neither has the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Previous court decisions have made it clear that, while the employees’ jobs must be similar, they need not be identical. Instead, the law requires the court to consider the degree of similarity “with respect to their job requirements and with regard to their pay provisions.”
Other “guideposts” the courts often use include things like:
- whether the plaintiffs worked in the same geographic locations;
- whether the alleged violations occurred during the same time period;
- whether the same policies and practices governed plaintiffs and whether the same decision-maker established these policies and practices in the same manner; and
- the extent to which the alleged violations are similar.
Another thing to know is that you do need to satisfy all of these guideposts. For example, in the salesman’s case, all the would-be collective members held identical or similar job titles, and the alleged FLSA violations all occurred within the same general time period. The FLSA violations the workers alleged were identical: namely, that the employer misclassified all of them as exempt when they were really non-exempt. The employees, however, did not all work in one geographic area, with job sites spanning from Florida to Ohio.
In sum, despite the lack of geographic similarity, the remaining factors indicated that the parties were similarly situated, leading the court to grant the worker’s motion.
FLSA collective actions can provide workers with many benefits, including increased bargaining power and reduced costs… and more. Whether you are an employee or an employer, skilled counsel is often essential for navigating the collective action process. If you are involved in a collective action, the Atlanta collective action attorneys at the law firm of Parks, Chesin & Walbert can help. Our team is highly experienced in this complex, nuanced area of law, which is filled with many gray areas. To protect your rights, contact us through this website or at 404-873-8048 to schedule a consultation today.