Guillen v. Marshalls of MA, Inc.
750 F. Supp. 2d 469
| S.D.N.Y. | 2010Background
- Guillen sues Marshalls for FLSA overtime violations as an ASM and seeks nationwide conditional certification to notify all ASMs.
- Marshalls has ~820 stores; ASMs are categorized into Merchandise and Operations and deemed exempt from overtime; non-exempt employees include coordinators and associates.
- Guillen worked as a Merchandise ASM in NY (Hartsdale and Bronx) from ~Sept 2007 to Sept 2008, estimating 60–70 hours/week with no overtime.
- Guillen and other NY ASMs contend they performed many non-exempt tasks (stocking, cleaning, display, backroom duties) contrary to their job descriptions.
- Affidavits from five NY ASMs and two non-exempt coordinators claim similar non-exempt duties and lack of overtime pay across NY stores.
- Marshalls argues that nationwide similarity is not shown; evidence is limited to NY stores and does not establish uniform company-wide practices.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are ASMs nationwide similarly situated regarding non-managerial duties? | Guillen asserts nationwide similarity due to company-wide practices and uniform job titles. | Marshalls argues evidence is limited to NY stores; cannot show nationwide uniformity. | Denied; not demonstrated nationwide similarity. |
| Does a written job description alone establish similarity for conditional certification? | Guillen relies on generalized descriptions plus alleged deviations showing non-exempt work. | Marshalls contends the job description governs; deviations do not prove nationwide similarity. | Not sufficient; description alone does not prove nationwide similarity. |
| Is the evidence sufficient to justify notice to a nationwide class at this stage? | Moderate showing of common policy warrants notice to all ASMs nationwide. | Thin evidence from NY-only stores cannot justify nationwide notice. | Not warranted; denial without prejudice to a narrower, store-limited request. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (Supreme Court 1989) (district courts may facilitate notice to potential plaintiffs)
- Myers v. The Hertz Corp., 624 F.3d 537 (2d Cir. 2010) (two-step process; class notice as a case-management tool)
- Zivali v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 646 F. Supp. 2d 658 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (employee-wide policies; nationwide similarity considerations)
- Realite v. Ark Restaurants Corp., 7 F. Supp. 2d 303 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (evidence of violations across locations can support conditional certification)
- Laroque v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, 557 F. Supp. 2d 346 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (store-specific variances; limits on nationwide certification)
- Holt v. Rite Aid Corp., 333 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (M.D. Ala. 2004) (mere common managerial tasks are insufficient for nationwide similarity)