Hamm v. Southern Ohio Medical Center
275 F. Supp. 3d 863
S.D. Ohio2017Background
- Plaintiff, a security officer at Southern Ohio Medical Center (SOMC), alleges SOMC automatically deducts a 30-minute meal period from each 10.5-hour shift and that officers perform work during those deducted meal periods, producing unpaid overtime under the FLSA.
- Plaintiff moved for conditional certification of an FLSA collective (Doc. 2) seeking notice to "all current and former Security Officers" who since Sept. 19, 2016 (later revised) worked >40 hours/wk and were not properly compensated because of the automatic meal deduction policy.
- Plaintiff filed two declarations and later sought leave to amend to add a second named plaintiff (Simones) and to file Simones’s declaration as supplemental evidence; Defendant opposed and moved to strike portions of the declarations and for leave to file a sur-reply.
- The court granted leave to amend, granted leave to file the supplemental Simones declaration, allowed Defendant to file a sur-reply, and denied Defendant’s motion to strike (but excluded specific hearsay portions of declarations).
- On the merits of conditional certification, the court applied the lenient ‘‘modest showing’’ standard at the initial-notice stage and found Plaintiff presented sufficient, non-weighed evidence of a common policy (automatic deduction plus restricted ‘‘no lunch’’ reporting and interruptions) to certify a collective.
- The court defined the class period using a three-year statute of limitations but tailored the operative start date to February 1, 2014, and authorized notice by first-class mail to current employees and by mail and email to former employees, with a court-authorized reminder midway.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conditional certification / "similarly situated" | Hamm: declarations show a common policy (auto-deduction) and common practice of working during deducted lunches, so a modest showing supports conditional certification | SOMC: plaintiff failed to identify others, lacks personal knowledge about others, and issues are individualized; auto-deduction not per se unlawful | Granted: plaintiff made the required modest showing; conditional certification appropriate; decertification can be sought after discovery |
| Use of supplemental declarations / amendment | Hamm: Simones’s declaration is relevant and timely submitted after briefing; leave to amend and submit evidence should be allowed | SOMC: new declarations are untimely and prejudicial; should be struck | Granted: leave to amend and to file Simones’s declaration; Defendant allowed sur-reply; some declarant statements later excluded as hearsay |
| Motion to strike portions of declarations | Hamm: declarants have personal knowledge and their statements are admissible for conditional-certification stage | SOMC: declarations contain hearsay, contradictions, lack personal knowledge, and are procedurally improper | Denied (in part): court will not strike entire declarations but disregarded specific hearsay paragraphs; other portions admitted for evaluation at this stage |
| Notice class period and distribution | Hamm: three-year FLSA limitations (willful violation) and proposed notice methods (mail to current and former, email to former, reminder) | SOMC: class period should be two years back from certification date; objects to wording "not properly compensated" and email to current employees | Partly granted: court used three-year limitations but set operative start to Feb 1, 2014; wording acceptable; notice by first-class mail to current employees and mail+email to former employees; reminder allowed via same methods |
Key Cases Cited
- Comer v. Wal-Mart Stores, 454 F.3d 544 (6th Cir. 2006) (two-step collective-action certification framework and ‘‘similarly situated’’ standard)
- O’Brien v. Ed Donnelly Enters., 575 F.3d 567 (6th Cir. 2009) (claims unified by common theory suffice for conditional certification despite individualized proofs)
- Hoffmann‑La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1989) (standards limiting court-approved notice in collective actions)
- Dole v. Elliott Travel & Tours, 942 F.2d 962 (6th Cir. 1991) (definition of willful FLSA violations for three-year statute of limitations)
- McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1988) (standards for willfulness under the FLSA)