Crowe v. Examworks, Inc.
136 F. Supp. 3d 16
D. Mass.2015Background
- Plaintiffs are former/present MES and ExamWorks employees in Norwood, MA, working as URNAs, CQACs, and CCs, challenging overtime misclassification under FLSA and MA wage laws.
- MES was acquired by ExamWorks in 2012; URNAs and CQACs were reclassified from exempt to non-exempt in 2012, affecting overtime eligibility.
- URNA duties involve reviewing requests for medical treatment, applying guidelines, and either approving or referring for physician review; CQAC duties involve assignment and quality assurance of peer reviews.
- Disputes exist over whether URNAs and CQACs perform advanced medical knowledge requiring prolonged instruction, justifying exempt status under learned professional or administrative exemptions.
- Timekeeping, meal breaks, and supervisor timecard edits are contested, with plaintiffs alleging off-the-clock work and defendants claiming legitimate administrative controls.
- Procedural posture includes motions for partial summary judgment and class certification on state-law claims (Counts III, IV, V).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| URNA exemption status pre-reclassification | URNAs perform advanced medical review requiring discretion; RN credentials support exemption. | URNA duties do not require prolonged specialized instruction; potential disqualifying factors exist. | Questions of fact remain; exemptions not clearly satisfied for URNAs pre-reclassification. |
| CQAC exemption status pre- and post-reclassification | CQACs' duties and qualifications may meet learned professional or administrative exemptions. | CQACs fail learned professional; may fit administrative exemption pre-reclassification but not post. | CQACs pre-reclassification: administrative exemption plausible; post-reclassification: administrative exemption denied; summary judgment limited accordingly. |
| Overtime liability under FLSA for non-exempt periods | Off-the-clock work and timecard edits by supervisors violated FLSA overtime; employees should be compensated. | Factual disputes on hours worked, supervisor knowledge, and policies preclude summary judgment. | No summary judgment on Counts II and IV due to disputed facts; CQAC pre-reclass, some post-reclass considerations resolved; others remain. |
| Massachusetts law misclassification and class certification | Mass. law claims should be certified as a class for CQACs and URNAs; common questions predominate. | Claims largely individualized; predominance not met for Counts IV and V. | Class certification granted for Count III (misclassification) but denied for Counts IV (overtime) and V (breach of contract). |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark v. Centene Co. of Tex., 44 F.Supp.3d 674 (W.D.Tex. 2014) (exemption analysis for professional status under FLSA)
- Rieve v. Coventry Health Care, Inc., 870 F.Supp.2d 856 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (RN utilization review exemption analysis and discretion)
- Powell v. Am. Red Cross, 518 F.Supp.2d 24 (D.D.C. 2007) (RN advanced knowledge and deployment medical review exemption)
- Reich v. Newspapers of New Eng., Inc., 44 F.3d 1060 (1st Cir. 1995) (professional exemptions narrowly construed)
- George v. National Water Main Cleaning Co., 286 F.R.D. 168 (D.Mass. 2012) (commonality and predominance in wage-class actions)