287 F.R.D. 431
S.D. Ind.2012Background
- Hawkins filed a wage-and-hour complaint against Alorica, alleging FLSA overtime/minimum wages and IWPA claims for Terre Haute call center employees.
- Alorica operates a Terre Haute call center with up to about 500 CSRs; CSRs typically work 40 hours weekly and are paid hourly between $8.00 and $9.50.
- Time is tracked by the Avaya phone system and the EIS, with AUX codes indicating status; CSRs are not considered on the clock until they log into the phone system.
- Hawkins claims a policy and practice required pre-shift work (booting computers, pulling up systems) and post-shift work (reviewing/exceptions) without compensation.
- Documents cited include the Handbook, Carrie’s Team — Steps To Success, AUX Usage Document, and emails from McConnell, Malone, and Gettinger supporting pre-/post-shift work practices.
- Alorica contends it pays for time spent on work-related activities and presents declarations from management asserting CSRs are paid for such activities and should log in to the phone system first.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FLSA collective action certification is proper | Hawkins seeks conditional certification for pre-/post-shift work as similarly situated. | Alorica disputes class-wide policy; variability among supervisors undermines similarity. | Denied for pre-/post-shift work; not sufficiently similarly situated. |
| Whether unpaid pre-/post-shift work is a common issue under FLSA | Uniform policy suggested by Handbook and emails shows common pre-/post-shift off-the-clock work. | Evidence shows only isolated supervisors, not a company-wide policy. | Not certified; no substantial common policy established. |
| Whether unpaid breaks claim for FLSA can be conditionally certified | Login/logout data show breaks under 20 minutes were unpaid across many CSRs. | Breaks and their timing vary; data may reflect many permissible scenarios. | Conditionally certified; evidence supports common practice of unpaid short breaks. |
| Whether IWPA break class satisfies Rule 23(a) commonality | Login/logout data indicates shared practice of unpaid short breaks. | Reason for logout varies; no universal policy proven. | Commonality satisfied for IWPA unpaid breaks class; Rule 23(a) analysis passed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Szabo v. Bridgeport Machs., Inc., 249 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 2001) (class prerequisites require a workable common question framework)
- De La Fuente v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc., 713 F.2d 225 (7th Cir. 1983) (typicality and commonality considerations in class actions)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (commonality requires a glue holding claims together; proof of uniform discriminatory policy)