Guillen v. Marshalls of MA, Inc., 841 F. Supp. 2d 797

Guillen, a Marshalls assistant store manager, sues Marshalls for FLSA overtime violations.
Guillen previously sought nationwide conditional certification, denied without prejudice in Guillen I.
Marshalls classifies ASMs as exempt under 29 U.S.C. §213(a)(1) and requires primary duties involving discretion and independent judgment.
Guillen argues a uniform nationwide policy caused ASMs to perform non-exempt tasks, supporting nationwide certification.
Post-Guilien I discovery shows uniform training, job descriptions, and standards across stores, but evidence of nationwide non-exempt duties remains absent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Guillen is similarly situated to nationwide ASMs.	Guillen and others share a common policy of performing non-exempt duties.	No substantial evidence that nationwide ASMs perform non-exempt tasks.	Denied; insufficient showing of similarity to nationwide ASMs.
Whether evidence demonstrates nationwide non-exempt duties by ASMs.	There is a uniform expectation across stores.	Record lacks proof of nationwide non-exempt duties.	Denied; evidence does not establish nationwide non-exempt duties.
Whether conditional certification of nationwide class is appropriate.	Any overinclusiveness can be cured later in second stage.	Certification would be wasteful without substantial similarity.	Denied; lack of modest factual showing of similarity.

Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1989) (district court may facilitate notice under § 216(b))
Sbarro, Inc. v. Sbarro, 982 F. Supp. 249 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (modest factual showing required to support notice)
Raniere v. Citigroup Inc., 827 F. Supp. 2d 294 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (evidence of nationwide similarly situated employees as to claim)
Lin v. Benihana Nat’l Corp., 755 F. Supp. 2d 504 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (fact pattern similar; denial of nationwide certification without sufficient evidence)