Blount v. U.S. Security Associates, Inc.
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72819
| D.D.C. | 2013Background
- Security guards worked in DC public schools from Oct 2009–Jan 2012 under two employers, U.S. Security and Watkins DC.
- Plaintiffs allege unlawful automatic deductions of 30 minutes for meals while guards remained on-site and ready to respond.
- Policy alleged to be administered through a centralized payroll and apply to guards across 78 schools.
- Plaintiffs seek to certify two collective-action classes and obtain court-facilitated notice for opt-ins.
- Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ amended motion for certification and denied pre-certification discovery; scheduled notice considerations.
- Section notes procedural posture: stay on earlier certification motion, then amended motion filed; Court must address common policy, manageability, and notice issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs satisfy the modest showing for conditional certification | Plaintiffs show a common unlawful policy applied to all guards | Defendants argue dissimilarities and merits issues preclude certification | Yes; common policy shown; conditional certification granted in part |
| Whether differences among putative class members bar certification | Differences are immaterial to common policy liability | Varying schedules and interruptions render class not similarly situated | No; differences do not defeat similarly situated finding |
| Whether manageability favors conditional certification | Unified policy with common liability; damages can be calculated collectively | Individualized inquiries would dominate | No; efficiency of common policy trial supports certification at this stage |
| Whether discovery before conditional certification is appropriate | Record sufficient to decide certification now | Defendants need discovery to challenge certification | Denied; discovery not required to decide conditional certification at this stage |
| What information should be produced to facilitate notice | Provide names, addresses, dates of employment; DOB/phone not mandatory | DOB and phone raise privacy concerns; limit initially | Names, addresses, and employment dates ordered; DOB/phone not required now; notice window set to Oct 2009–Jan 2012. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffmann-LaRoche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (U.S. Supreme Court 1989) (collective action notice and certification framework)
- Hunter v. Sprint Corp., 346 F. Supp. 2d 113 (D.D.C. 2004) (two-stage certification; modest showing at initial stage)
- Dinkel v. MedStar Health, Inc., 880 F. Supp. 2d 49 (D.D.C. 2012) (two-stage certification; common policy showing at initial stage)
- McKinney v. United Stor-All Ctrs., Inc., 585 F. Supp. 2d 6 (D.D.C. 2008) (flexible standard for conditional certification; not heavy burden)
- Castillo v. P & R Enters., Inc., 517 F. Supp. 2d 440 (D.D.C. 2007) (immaterial differences ok for conditional certification; focus on common policy)
- Summers v. Howard University, 127 F. Supp. 2d 27 (D.D.C. 2000) (merits-like arguments inappropriate at conditional stage)
- Haviland v. Catholic Health Initiatives, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1038 (S.D. Iowa 2010) (summary-judgment context; cited regarding merits preemption at conditional stage)