Galloway v. Chugach Government Services, Inc.
263 F. Supp. 3d 151
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Carolyn Galloway, Desiree McKeiver, and Carlette Ososanya worked as "Residential Advisors" for Chugach Government Services at the Potomac Job Corps dormitories and allege unpaid overtime under the FLSA and related D.C. law.
- Plaintiffs contend Chugach had practices of (1) deducting an hour for meal breaks even when employees worked through them, (2) requiring employees to remain after shifts unpaid while waiting for replacements, and (3) regularly requiring more than five eight-hour shifts per week without overtime.
- Only Ososanya submitted a declaration describing these practices from personal knowledge and stating she knows other Residential Advisors experienced the same treatment; no discovery had occurred when the motion was filed.
- Plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of an FLSA collective action and for defendant to produce contact information and approve a notice to potential opt-ins; Chugach opposed conditional certification, the scope, and production of email addresses.
- The Court applied the two-step conditional-certification framework and concluded Plaintiffs met the low "modest factual showing" standard narrowly, but limited certification to Residential Advisors at the Potomac Job Corps dormitories and only for claims accruing within three years prior to each opt-in’s consent.
- The Court ordered Chugach to provide names and residential addresses (not emails) of Residential Advisors employed since July 12, 2014, and directed the parties to confer and jointly submit a proposed notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conditional certification is warranted | Plaintiffs: Ososanya's declaration and job-title commonality show a common policy and similarly situated employees | Chugach: Evidence is speculative, conclusory, lacks declarations from other employees, and shows individualized differences | Granted in part: low "modest factual showing" met narrowly; conditional certification limited to Potomac Job Corps Residential Advisors |
| Geographical/scope limits of collective | Plaintiffs: propose all Residential Advisors employed since June 23, 2012 | Chugach: Ososanya's knowledge is facility-specific; certification should be limited | Court limited notice to Residential Advisors at Potomac Job Corps dormitories only |
| Temporal scope (statute of limitations) | Plaintiffs sought back to June 23, 2012 | Chugach: FLSA opt-in accrual dates control; notice should reflect 3-year limitations period | Court required collective limited to claims within three years prior to each opt-in's written consent (use three-year period pending willfulness determination) |
| Disclosure of contact information and form of notice | Plaintiffs sought names, addresses, and emails and approval of proposed notice | Chugach: emails are private; proposed notice contains errors and loaded language; wants input | Court ordered names and residential addresses only; parties must confer and jointly propose a notice (court will resolve disputes if they cannot agree) |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989) (district courts may facilitate notice to potential collective-action plaintiffs)
- Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523 (2013) (distinguishing FLSA collective actions from Rule 23 class actions)
- Myers v. Hertz Corp., 624 F.3d 537 (2d Cir. 2010) (two-step approach to FLSA conditional certification)
- Morgan v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., 551 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2008) (explaining conditional certification procedure and opt-in status)
- Hipp v. Liberty Nat. Life Ins. Co., 252 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2001) (decertification analysis is ad hoc and within district court discretion)
- Ayala v. Tito Contractors, 12 F. Supp. 3d 167 (D.D.C. 2014) (describing the low "modest factual showing" required at stage one)
- Blount v. U.S. Sec. Assocs., 945 F. Supp. 2d 88 (D.D.C. 2013) (discussing conditional certification and notice facilitation)
- Castillo v. P & R Enters., Inc., 517 F. Supp. 2d 440 (D.D.C. 2007) (conditionally certifying based on general evidence of similar job responsibilities)