Don’t Forget to Argue the Merits of “Subclassing” When Fighting for Flsa Conditional Certification

When companies oppose FLSA conditional certification motions in collective actions seeking unpaid overtime, they often argue that the proposed FLSA class is not “similarly situated” because the class members work in different departments of the plant or work at different job sites. These arguments generally are intended to scare the court into believing that that collective litigation would be unmanageable.

In response to the above argument, Trial Lawyers should argue, among other things, that “subclassing” often enables the trial judge to efficiently manage FLSA classes consisting of different groups of class members. Below, you will find citations to decisions in which the district court recognized the benefits of subclassing in granting FLSA conditional certification motions. The decisions arise out of district courts in Texas, Illinois, Kansas, New York, Mississippi, Kentucky, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Colorado.

Ryan v. Staff Care, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49060, *13 n.3 (N.D. Tex. July 6, 2007) (while differences in employees’ pay classifications might demonstrate “the need for subclassing in this case,” such differences did not warrant denial of conditional certification) Read the rest of this entry »

Related Posts
  • Pete Winebrake Discusses Wage and Overtime Rights on Gambone Law Podcast Read More
  • Trump Administration’s Joint Employment and Independent Contractor Regulations Are “On the Ropes” Read More
  • Two Takeaways From Pennsylvania’s August 2022 PMWA Regulations Read More