439 F.Supp.3d 964
S.D. Ohio
2020
Read the full case

Background

  • Plaintiffs are four former carpet installers who allege Certified Flooring Installation, Inc. (CFI) paid piece‑rates and did not pay overtime despite routinely working >40 hours (often 55–62.5 hours).
  • Anthony Couch filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy on Jan 8, 2018 and did not list the potential FLSA claim in his Schedule A/B; he was discharged Aug 17, 2018 and later filed this FLSA suit on Jan 24, 2019.
  • Couch executed an FLSA consent while his bankruptcy was pending and later reopened his bankruptcy (Mar 20, 2019) and amended Schedule A/B to list the lawsuit (Apr 17, 2019). The Bankruptcy Trustee supported allowing disclosure.
  • CFI moved to dismiss Couch’s claims based on judicial estoppel for failure to disclose the claim in bankruptcy (alternative: summary judgment). Plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of an FLSA collective and court‑supervised notice.
  • The Court treated CFI’s dismissal motion as a summary judgment motion on estoppel, found genuine disputes of material fact as to bad faith, and denied the motion. The Court granted conditional certification of the FLSA collective, ordered revisions to the notice/class wording, and set a 60‑day opt‑in window with defendant production of contact information.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Judicial estoppel based on bankruptcy nondisclosure Couch says omission was inadvertent; he relied on bankruptcy counsel, later reopened case, amended schedules, and contacted the Trustee CFI says Couch contradicted sworn bankruptcy filings, had motive to conceal, and should be estopped from pursuing the FLSA claim Denied summary judgment; genuine dispute over bad faith (timing, counsel advice, corrective steps) precludes estoppel at this stage
Conditional certification of FLSA collective ("similarly situated") Plaintiffs assert a common, uniform policy of not paying overtime; submitted declarations showing similar pay practice and hours; identified ~100 potential class members CFI argues class is overbroad, includes hourly vs piece‑rate workers, and the notice language ("exempt employees") creates manageability/fail‑safe problems Granted conditional certification under lenient early‑stage standard; declarations sufficient to make modest factual showing of common policy; Court ordered refined class definition
Adequacy and distribution of opt‑in notice Proposed notice describes claims, opt‑in procedure, and is timely and informative; Plaintiffs will amend language per Court CFI objected to certain class wording and speculative assertions about exemptions Notice approved as amended; defendant to produce contact info and plaintiffs to distribute notice within defined deadlines

Key Cases Cited

  • New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001) (general description of judicial estoppel doctrine)
  • White v. Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc., 617 F.3d 472 (6th Cir. 2010) (three‑factor framework for estoppel and tests for inadvertent omission)
  • Eubanks v. CBSK Fin. Grp., Inc., 385 F.3d 894 (6th Cir. 2004) (bad faith analysis: effort, effectiveness, timing to notify bankruptcy court)
  • Lewis v. Weyerhaeuser Co., [citation="141 F. App'x 420"] (6th Cir.) (failure to disclose can support estoppel where omissions are egregious)
  • Newman v. Univ. of Dayton, [citation="751 F. App'x 809"] (6th Cir.) (limits on reliance on counsel when omissions are blatant)
  • Comer v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 454 F.3d 544 (6th Cir. 2006) (two‑step FLSA collective action certification framework)
  • Monroe v. FTS USA, LLC, 860 F.3d 389 (6th Cir. 2017) (similarity standard for FLSA collective claims)
  • O'Brien v. Ed Donnelly Enters., Inc., 575 F.3d 567 (6th Cir. 2009) (common policy/unified theory supports collective treatment)
  • Hoffmann‑La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989) (opt‑in notice must be timely, accurate, and informative)
  • Bassett v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 528 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2008) (materials courts may consider on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion)
  • Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard; movant’s burden)
  • Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (nonmovant must show genuine dispute beyond metaphysical doubt)
  • Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (no mere scintilla rule for summary judgment evidence)
  • Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970) (view evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)
  • Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (courts must not weigh credibility on summary judgment)
Read the full case