Barry v. United States
117 Fed. Cl. 518
Fed. Cl.2014Background
- Plaintiffs are current and former GS-1801 Immigration Officers and GS-0132 Intelligence Research Specialists at DHS/USCIS.
- USCIS designated these positions exempt from FLSA overtime prior to February 12, 2012.
- Plaintiffs seek backpay and liquidated damages under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) for overtime hours worked while exempt.
- They also allege willful misclassification which could extend the statute of limitations to three years under § 255(a).
- Plaintiffs move for conditional certification of a FLSA collective action and for court-approved notice to potential members; the government opposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conditional certification is appropriate. | Plaintiffs: common policy in misclassification. | GOV: no common issues since status conceded; only individualized inquiries remain. | Granted conditional certification; common policy exists. |
| Whether damages questions overwhelm common issues. | Damages are class-wide; varying amounts do not defeat commonality. | Damages require individualized calculations. | Damages may vary but are tied to class-wide misclassification; not fatal to certification. |
| What is the proper class definition and look-back period? | Include all eligible employees within the claims period. | Limit to three-year look-back to avoid time-barred claims. | Adopt a three-year look-back; define class as three years prior to notice to present. |
| Is the proposed class notice content appropriate? | Caption on first page clarifies court-authorized notice. | Caption may imply court endorsement; prefer placement elsewhere and limit counsel contact guidance. | Caption allowed on first page; remove directing recipients to plaintiffs' counsel for retaliation notice. |
| Is a nationwide class permissible despite regional timekeeping variations? | Nationwide policy governs exemption; regional variations do not bar common issues. | Need to show uniform timekeeping/compensation methods. | Nationwide policy supports conditional certification; common policy persists. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cameron-Grant v. Maxim Healthcare Servs., 347 F.3d 1240 (11th Cir. 2003) (two-step framework for certification; similarly situated analysis)
- Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1989) (common issues of law and fact arising from the same activity for certifying collective actions)