221 F. Supp. 3d 178
D. Mass.2016Background
- Plaintiff Fernando Cunha worked as an Avis damage manager in Boston from 2004–2012 and alleges he regularly worked >40 hours/week without overtime pay.
- Avis classifies damage managers as salaried and overtime-exempt; there are ~30 current and recently terminated damage managers across locations.
- Avis uses a single job description for the damage manager classification, with five grades tied to location revenue/fleet size and experience; duties are described as generally common across grades.
- Cunha sued under the FLSA (29 U.S.C. § 207) as an opt‑in collective action and brought related Massachusetts wage claims individually; the case was removed to federal court.
- Cunha moved for conditional certification and court‑facilitated notice to the putative collective under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should conditionally certify a collective and authorize notice under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) | Cunha: damage managers are uniformly classified as exempt and share common duties and qualifications, so they are "similarly situated" and notice should issue | Avis: (implicitly) distinctions in duties/grades and location variability defeat a collective finding at least for notice | Granted: court applied the lenient, two‑step approach and found "some factual support" that members are similarly situated; conditional certification and notice authorized |
| Whether defendant must produce names and addresses for notice | Cunha: disclosure is necessary to send court‑authorized notice to potential opt‑ins | Avis: (implicitly) privacy/overbreadth concerns or factual dissimilarity could limit disclosure | Granted: Avis ordered to produce names and last known addresses within 14 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Skirchak v. Dynamics Research Corp., 508 F.3d 49 (1st Cir.) (discusses purpose of FLSA collective actions)
- Hoffmann‑La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (U.S.) (court‑facilitated notice permissible in collective actions)
- Myers v. Hertz Corp., 624 F.3d 537 (2d Cir.) (FLSA collective actions require opt‑in, not Rule 23 treatment)
- Trezvant v. Fidelity Employer Servs. Corp., 434 F.Supp.2d 40 (D. Mass.) (adopts two‑step collective certification approach)
- Kane v. Gage Merchandising Servs., Inc., 138 F.Supp.2d 212 (D. Mass.) (uniform employer classification can justify conditional certification)
- Lynch v. United States Auto Ass’n, 491 F.Supp.2d 357 (S.D.N.Y.) (collective actions promote efficient adjudication of similar claims)
- Tony & Susan Alamo Found. v. Secretary of Labor, 471 U.S. 290 (U.S.) (context on FLSA’s remedial purpose)
- Melendez Cintron v. Hershey P.R., Inc., 363 F.Supp.2d 10 (D.P.R.) (plaintiff must show some factual support beyond bare allegations to authorize notice)