Graham v. Famous Daves of America, Inc., 1:19-cv-00486

Background

Plaintiff Christopher Graham worked as a server at Famous Dave’s Waldorf, MD restaurant from Jan. 27, 2016 to July 1, 2017; Famous Dave’s used a tip-credit system for Tipped Employees.
Graham alleges Famous Dave’s failed to provide adequate §203(m) tip-credit notice (same "Tip Credit Notice" form used across states), ran an illegal tip pool including non‑tipped personnel, required employees to cover customer walkouts from tips, and forced excessive non‑tipped (side) work while taking a tip credit.
Famous Dave’s owned four Maryland restaurants during part of the relevant period; it later refranchised Maryland locations and operates many restaurants in other states with some state‑specific forms/practices.
Procedural posture: Graham filed suit (FLSA, Maryland Wage & Hour Law, MWPCL, common law) and moved to conditionally certify an FLSA collective and certify a Maryland class under Rule 23; motions also pending to strike a manager declaration, for partial summary judgment, for discovery sanctions, and to seal exhibits.
Court found disputed factual issues on most claims but (1) denied the motion to strike the manager’s declaration and denied discovery sanctions, (2) denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, (3) conditionally certified an FLSA collective and certified a Rule 23 Maryland class limited to claims based on inadequate tip‑credit notice, and (4) granted/denied various sealing requests in part.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Motion to strike Demetrius Weeden declaration	Weeden's declaration contains facts not previously disclosed and statements beyond personal knowledge	No discovery violation; Weeden was identified and as GM has personal knowledge; declaration goes to weight, not admissibility	Denied — no discovery violation shown; statements admissible and go to weight
Conditional FLSA collective certification (tip‑credit notice)	Tip Credit Notice used in Maryland was inadequate and uniformly applied; other MD tipped employees are similarly situated	Notice forms/training varied by state and by location; non‑Maryland claims involve different state law figures and practices	Granted in part — conditionally certify collective limited to tipped employees at Famous Dave’s company‑owned MD locations for three years prior to motion filing
Rule 23 class certification (Maryland MWHL claims re: tip notice)	Maryland tipped employees suffered common injury from deficient tip‑credit notice; class meets numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance and superiority	Local practice variations weaken common proof; some individualized issues exist	Granted as to Maryland tipped employees on MWHL/MWHA claims tied to inadequate tip‑credit notice; parties to confer on notice details
Partial summary judgment (tip notice; illegal tip pool; retained tips)	Record indisputably shows inadequate tip notice and an illegal tip pool/retention	Material factual disputes exist (signed notices, manager testimony, location differences, tip‑pool practice inconsistent)	Denied — credible conflicting evidence (including manager declaration) creates genuine issues of material fact
Discovery sanctions re: 30(b)(6) testimony and errata	Corporate designee unprepared; errata and late document production prejudiced plaintiff; sanctions or curative orders needed	Defendant supplemented productions and reconvened depositions; no bad faith; errors corrected promptly	Denied — no bad faith or egregious obstruction; supplements and reconvened depositions cured prejudice
Motions to seal	Parties sought blanket sealing of many filings/exhibits as confidential	Court requires specific factual justification and narrow redactions; boilerplate insufficient	Partially granted and partially denied; some exhibits sealed (paystubs, employee roster data) and several sealing requests denied; parties given opportunity to renew narrowly tailored motions

Key Cases Cited

Hoffmann‑La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (establishes court‑facilitated notice/opt‑in framework for FLSA collective actions)
Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66 (limits collective certification to "other employees similarly situated")
McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128 (defines "willful" FLSA violations for three‑year statute of limitations)
Richard v. Marriott Corp., 549 F.2d 303 (requires strict compliance with §203(m) tip‑credit notice requirements)
Butler v. DirectSAT USA, LLC, 876 F. Supp. 2d 560 (D. Md.) (adopts two‑stage approach to FLSA collective certification)
S. Sts. Rack & Fixture, Inc. v. Sherwin‑Williams Co., 318 F.3d 592 (4th Cir.) (discusses Rule 37 sanctions/harmlessness analysis)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard — burden on movant)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard on genuine issue of material fact)
Rangarajan v. Johns Hopkins Univ., 917 F.3d 218 (4th Cir.) (example of sanctions where deposition testimony contradicted prior testimony and prejudiced discovery)