Duane Morris Class Action Review - 2023 - Report - Page 234
responsibilities of each assistant manager were far from uniform, thereby favoring
decertification. Id. Further, the court reasoned that the applicability of FLSA exemptions
that could be asserted by the defendant as affirmative defenses would require
individualized analysis. Id. at *7. Finally, the court noted that it would be unfair to allow
representative testimony at trial given the disparity in individual experiences. Id. at *8.
For these reasons, the court granted the defendant’s motion and decertified the
collective action.
Employers in misclassification cases that rely on the FLSA’s exemptions often focus on
the administrative exemption, which requires in part establishing the discretion and
independent judgment used in substantial matters by employees. Demonstrating this
discretion can result in decertification of a collective action, as illustrated by Weeks, et
al. v. Matrix Absence Management, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211682 (D. Ariz. Nov.
21, 2022). In that case the plaintiffs, who worked as claims examiners for the
Defendant, alleged that they were improperly classified as exempt under the FLSA and
were therefore denied overtime wages. The plaintiffs subsequently moved to amend the
complaint to add a Rule 23 class claim under Oregon state law in addition to the FLSA
claim, which the court allowed. After the close of discovery, the defendant filed a motion
for decertification of the FLSA collective action, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification under Rule 23 with respect to their Oregon state law claim. The parties
agreed that the main issue in the case was whether the plaintiffs were subject to the
FLSA's administrative exemption, but disputed whether plaintiffs met the third element
of the administrative exemption, i.e., requiring the exercise of discretion and
independent judgment with respect to matters of significance. The defendant argued
that the plaintiffs had highly disparate levels of authority, citing six specific areas where
the claims examiners' authority varied significantly, including making claim decisions or
recommendations to supervisors. Id. at *7. Though the plaintiffs argued that their
discretion was constrained by customer plan criteria, the defendant's policies, and
audits by supervisors, the defendant asserted that the constraints on the claims
examiners' discretion itself varied significantly and supported decertification. Id. at *7-8.
The court agreed. It held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate any material factual or
legal similarities within the membership of the collective action. Id. at *9. For these
reasons, the court granted the defendants’ motion for decertification and denied the
plaintiffs’ motion for Rule 23 class certification.
E.
Rulings Denying Decertification
The rulings from 2022 denying decertification largely resulted from defendants’ inability
to identify material differences or individualized issues that would preclude a collective
action. While geographic differences and different locations can help, employers
challenging certification of a collective action must focus attempts to establish
differences on the common practice alleged or the job duties at issue.
In Brayman, et al. v. Keypoint Government Solutions, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60290
(D. Colo. Mar. 31, 2022), the plaintiffs, who worked as field investigators (FIs) for the
defendant, filed an FLSA collective action and Rule 23 class action asserting that the
defendant failed to pay them overtime. The court previously conditionally certified a
233
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
