Headspeth v. TPUSA, Inc
2:19-cv-02062
| S.D. Ohio | Jul 8, 2020Background
- Plaintiffs Chantel Headspeth and Kalyee McBride are former Teleperformance USA (TPUSA) technical support associates in Ohio who allege TPUSA failed to pay employees for time spent locating and logging into computer workstations before shifts, resulting in unpaid overtime under the FLSA.
- Plaintiffs seek conditional collective certification under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) for all former and current Ohio technical support associates and similar call-center positions who worked 40+ hours during the three years before the motion.
- Multiple opt-in consents have been filed by other employees; Plaintiffs submitted several largely identical declarations describing the alleged pre-shift unpaid time.
- The case was stayed pending resolution of a related class settlement in Cazeau (because its approval might be dispositive); the Cazeau court declined to approve the settlement, prompting Plaintiffs to move to lift the stay.
- The district court lifted the stay, found Plaintiffs met the lenient conditional-certification burden, granted conditional certification for the proposed Ohio collective (including multiple Ohio locations), and ordered the parties to confer and jointly submit a proposed notice and consent form (with any objections) to the court promptly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to lift stay | Cazeau settlement was not approved so stay should end | Stay was justified pending Cazeau resolution | Lifted — stay vacated after Cazeau denial |
| Conditional certification (are plaintiffs "similarly situated"?) | Declarations show common practice of unpaid pre-shift time and identify potential opt-ins | Declarations are lawyer-drafted boilerplate and insufficient; offered contrary site declarations | Granted — under lenient first-step standard declarations suffice to show similar positions |
| Scope by location (exclude Westerville?) | No requirement to produce a declaration from every location; company-wide practice may be shown by some locations | Exclude Westerville due to lack of a Westerville declarant | Denied — court included all Ohio locations as appropriate at this stage |
| Form/timing of notice | Plaintiffs submitted a proposed notice and argued defendant waived objections | Defendant disputed waiver and sought clarity; urged conferral | Court ordered the parties to confer and jointly file a proposed notice/consent with any objections and alternatives within a short deadline |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers v. Marietta Mem. Hosp., 201 F. Supp. 3d 884 (S.D. Ohio 2016) (describes lenient conditional-certification standard)
- Comer v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 454 F.3d 544 (6th Cir. 2006) (two-step FLSA certification framework; initial modest showing standard)
- O'Brien v. Ed Donnelly Enters., Inc., 575 F.3d 567 (6th Cir. 2009) (describes "similarly situated" as suffering from a single policy or conduct proving violation)
- Monroe v. FTS USA, LLC, 860 F.3d 389 (6th Cir. 2017) (discusses FLSA's remedial purpose)
- Hoffmann-La Roche v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989) (endorses court-supervised notice in collective actions)
- Castillo v. Morales, Inc., 302 F.R.D. 480 (S.D. Ohio 2014) (factors for assessing whether plaintiffs are similarly situated)
- Lewis v. Huntington Nat'l Bank, 789 F. Supp. 2d 863 (S.D. Ohio 2011) (plaintiff must show positions are similar, not identical)
- Waggoner v. U.S. Bancorp, 110 F. Supp. 3d 759 (N.D. Ohio 2015) (courts do not resolve merits or credibility at conditional-certification stage)