Wage & Hour Class and Collective Action Review — 2023 - Report - Page 33
Esparsen, et al. v. Ridley's Family Markets, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67625 (D. Colo.
Apr. 12, 2022), is a good example of how an employer can defeat conditional
certification when the collective action has uniform job titles by demonstrating varied job
responsibilities. The plaintiff, who was previously employed as an assistant manager at
one of the defendant's stores, filed a putative FLSA collective action on behalf of all
other assistant managers similarly-situated, alleging that the defendant failed to pay
overtime. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for conditional certification and notice
was sent to the members of the collective action per 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The defendant
subsequently moved to decertify the collective action following discovery. It asserted
that decertification was necessary because there is no typicality among the members of
the collective action, as the responsibilities of assistant managers varied depending on
the specific store and the division of responsibilities between store managers and
assistant managers at that store. Id. at *5. The defendant also pointed to deposition
testimony demonstrating the variation in different tasks like training employees, writing
schedules, and ordering product, among other tasks. Id. at *5-6. The plaintiff argued
that despite some variation in details, the assistant managers' jobs are unified by
common job descriptions, uniform pay and employment policies, and similar job duties,
and that the same legal theory applies to all of opt-ins’ claims. Id. at *6-7. The court held
that although evidence suggests that the assistant managers had the same title and
were subject to the same expectations and policies, their specific duties and
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
DM39529965.1
33
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
Wage & Hour Class And Collective Action Review – 2023
