Heeg v. Adams Harris, Inc.
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156151
S.D. Tex.2012Background
- Plaintiffs move for conditional class certification and notice for a potential opt-in class.
- Plaintiffs define the class as all hourly workers paid straight time for overtime in the past 3 years.
- Adams Harris opposes, arguing lack of similarly situated workers and application of the computer-professional exemption.
- Court grants in part, defining a limited conditional class limited to certain Project Professionals and independent contractors with specific work on accounting matters, cost analysis, and financial audits for vendor payments.
- Court acknowledges various Plaintiff declarations (Heeg, Semon, Woodward) and outlines Lusardi/Shushan framework and the need for some common policy evidence, while reserving broader rulings for later stages.
- Court ultimately limits the conditional class to those with similar accounting-related duties and allows willfulness-based three-year notice; orders production of names/addresses by a set date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there are other aggrieved individuals who want to opt in | Heeg/Semon show at least one other hourly worker8 interested | Adams Harris argues no evidence of interested aggrieved individuals | Yes; evidence shows at least one other hourly worker interested and 18 potential eligibles |
| Whether those individuals are similarly situated | Plaintiffs show similar accounting/cost-analysis tasks and pay policy | Different duties across locations and clients undermine similarity | Partially; only those with accounting/cost/audit duties are similarly situated; IT-infrastructure work excluded |
| Whether workers labeled as independent contractors may be included | Independent contractors performed work similar to plaintiffs; five-factor test supports inclusion | Included for purposes of conditional certification at this stage based on initial evidence | |
| Whether willfulness supports a three-year notice period | Willfulness not proven yet but appropriate to consider three-year period | Three-year notice appropriate; willfulness status does not bar notice at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Mooney v. Aramco Servs. Co., 54 F.3d 1207 (5th Cir. 1995) (guides Lusardi approach and conditional certification framework)
- Baldridge v. SBC Commc’ns, Inc., 404 F.3d 930 (5th Cir. 2005) (common policy requirement for similarly situated employees)
- Grayson v. K Mart Corp., 79 F.3d 1086 (11th Cir. 1996) (elastic, non-strict standard for similarly situated in §216(b))
- England v. New Century Fin. Corp., 370 F.Supp.2d 504 (M.D. La. 2005) (focus on generally applicable policy; not purely personal claims)
- Barron v. Henry County Sch. Sys., 242 F.Supp.2d 1096 (M.D. Ala. 2003) (notes need for identifiable facts binding claims for class action)