387 F. Supp. 3d 598
E.D. Pa.2019Background
- Plaintiff William Garcia, a former full-time hourly Researcher at Vertical Screen, filed an FLSA collective action on behalf of hourly Researchers and Team Leaders alleging unpaid work time and unlawful removal of overtime.
- Two principal claims: (1) defendant failed to pay 10–15 minutes daily spent logging into the ADP timekeeping system (about 2–4 hours/month); (2) supervisors or managers "shaved" 1–2 unapproved overtime hours per month from recorded time.
- Plaintiff submitted three declarations (Garcia, Julia Santana, Kristin Chirichiello) and Vertical Screen's 2011 Employee Handbook as evidentiary support for company-wide timekeeping and overtime-approval policies.
- Defendant disputed commonality, asserted de minimis/noncompensable time, individualized payroll decisions by many supervisors, and raised notice-content and dissemination objections.
- The court applied the Third Circuit two-step FLSA collective-certification framework and found plaintiff made the "modest factual showing" required for conditional certification of a collective on both asserted theories.
- Court approved methods and content limits for notice, appointed class counsel, ordered production of contact data, allowed one reminder mailing and up to two reminder emails, and restrained defendant from contacting potential opt-ins during the notice period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Garcia made a modest factual showing for conditional certification of unpaid log-in time | Garcia: declarations and handbook show uniform ADP log-in policy and recurring 10–15 min delays not paid | Vertical Screen: disputes uniform policy, claims time is de minimis and individualized payroll corrections exist | Court: granted conditional certification for unpaid log-in time — evidence met the lenient Step 1 showing |
| Whether Garcia made a modest factual showing for conditional certification of shaved overtime hours | Garcia: handbook requiring pre-approval plus declarations show managers removed unapproved OT hours weekly | Vertical Screen: says evidence is speculative, declarations weak, and practice varies by many supervisors | Court: granted conditional certification for shaved overtime hours — handbook and declarations suffice at Step 1 |
| Whether proposed collective definition is overbroad | Garcia: class limited to full-time, hourly Researchers and Team Leaders (past 3 years) | Vertical Screen: class includes different divisions, schedules, and managers making it overbroad | Court: overbreadth concerns are for Step 2/final stage; retained the proposed class definition |
| Proper scope and content of court-authorized notice and dissemination | Garcia: requested mailing, e-mail, posting, and reminder notices; proposed notice language | Vertical Screen: objected to posting, reminders, certain notice language, fee disclosure, and defendant contact restrictions | Court: approved posting, reminder mail/email; modified notice to state unpaid time allegation and fee will be deducted from recovery; struck consent language re: future actions; barred defendant from contacting potential opt-ins during notice period |
Key Cases Cited
- Camesi v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 729 F.3d 239 (3d Cir.) (describes two-step FLSA collective certification process and the "modest factual showing" standard)
- Zavala v. Wal Mart Stores Inc., 691 F.3d 527 (3d Cir.) (discusses similarly situated requirement for FLSA collective actions)
- Symczyk v. Genesis HealthCare Corp., 656 F.3d 189 (3d Cir.) (explains conditional certification is discretionary and not dispositive of merits)
- Hoffmann‑La Roche, Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (U.S.) (permits district courts to facilitate § 216(b) notice to potential plaintiffs)