Ayala v. Tito Contractors, Inc.
12 F. Supp. 3d 167
D.D.C.2014Background
- Plaintiffs are laborers who worked for Tito Contractors on various DC-area sites and allege unpaid overtime under the FLSA (29 U.S.C. § 207).
- Plaintiffs move for conditional class certification under § 216(b) to include current/former Tito laborers who were not paid overtime.
- Tito allegedly required 60–80 hours per week and directed underreporting of hours, with time records not kept properly.
- The putative class definition covers all individuals employed as laborers since October 18, 2010.
- There are 16 opt-in plaintiffs and the court addresses notice/identification procedures as part of conditional certification.
- The court grants conditional certification, outlining parameters for identifying and notifying class members.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the putative class is 'similarly situated' for conditional certification | Ayala argues all laborers share a common policy. | Tito contends class members are not sufficiently similar. | Yes; court finds modest showing of similarity and certifies conditionally. |
| Whether the first-stage standard for conditional certification is met | Ayala shows uniform practices of unpaid overtime and hour underreporting. | Tito argues lack of uniform policy. | Yes; court applies low first-stage standard and approves certification. |
| Notice and identification procedures for opt-in plaintiffs | Ayala seeks broader contact info and posting of notices. | Tito opposes broad posting and disclosure. | Court orders disclosure of names/last-known addresses, posting at Tito’s offices, 60-day opt-in window, and standard notice content. |
| Merits considerations at certification stage | Ayala asserts evidence supports common policy. | Tito argues merits should not be decided at this stage. | Court limits inquiry to whether evidence shows nexus; does not resolve merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Castillo v. P & R Enterprises, 517 F. Supp. 2d 440 (D.D.C. 2007) (first-stage certification findings for similar workers in FLSA action)
- Myers v. Hertz Corp., 624 F.3d 537 (2d Cir. 2010) (two-stage approach to FLSA collective actions; lenient first stage)
- Dinkel v. MedStar Health, Inc., 880 F. Supp.2d 49 (D.D.C. 2012) (recognizes two-stage framework for conditional certification (non-reporter cited in opinion))
- McKinney v. United Stor-All Ctrs., Inc., 585 F. Supp. 2d 6 (D.D.C. 2008) (recognizes liberal standard at first stage of certification)