Harlow v. Legend Energy Services, LLC
4:16-cv-02324
S.D. Tex.Oct 26, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Jared Harlow sued Legend Energy Services, LLC and three individual officers under the FLSA alleging misclassification as exempt salaried "Oilfield Workers" and failure to pay overtime.
- Harlow sought conditional certification under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) for a three-year collective of salaried Oilfield Workers and court-authorized notice to potential opt-ins.
- The Court considers the motion at the Lusardi notice-stage standard, where the plaintiff must make a minimal showing that similarly situated aggrieved employees exist and want to opt in.
- Harlow submitted no affidavits or evidence from other employees indicating interest in joining the suit; he relied on a conclusory statement that he believed others would join.
- The Court denied conditional certification and, because certification was denied, also denied the related motion for approval/distribution of notice and disclosure of contact information.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the proposed collective should be conditionally certified and notice authorized | Harlow argued he and other salaried Oilfield Workers were misclassified and similarly situated, justifying conditional certification and notice | Legend argued plaintiff failed to make the minimal showing at the notice stage, pointing out absence of evidence that other employees exist and would opt in | Denied — plaintiff failed to present minimal evidence (e.g., affidavits or identified potential opt-ins) that other aggrieved employees wish to join |
Key Cases Cited
- Mooney v. Aramco Servs. Co., 54 F.3d 1207 (5th Cir. 1995) (articulates two-stage Lusardi approach for FLSA collective actions)
- Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 118 F.R.D. 351 (D.N.J. 1987) (establishes notice-stage conditional certification framework)
- McKnight v. D. Houston, Inc., 756 F. Supp. 2d 794 (S.D. Tex. 2010) (sets minimal showing elements for notice-stage certification and importance of evidence of opt-in interest)
- Dybach v. State of Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 942 F.2d 1562 (11th Cir. 1991) (district court must satisfy itself that other employees desire to opt in)
- Valcho v. Dallas Cty. Hosp. Dist., 574 F. Supp. 2d 618 (N.D. Tex. 2008) (courts should avoid unnecessary solicitation; require some evidence of interest before authorizing notice)