Hernandez v. Telelink, LLC, 4:18-cv-02203

Plaintiffs Christie Hernandez, Amy Awad, and Phillip Kuta sued under the FLSA (plus state wage laws), alleging unpaid "off-the-clock" work and exclusion of commissions/bonuses from overtime calculations.
Plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of a collective under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) covering sales representatives who worked 40+ hours/week in the past three years at Warren, OH and/or Sharon, PA locations.
The court initially denied conditional certification without prejudice due to imperfect service; later granted conditional certification while Telestars had not yet appeared, and issued a 60‑day notice period.
Telestars later appeared, moved to set aside a default, and the court vacated default; the court then reopened briefing on whether Telestars employees should be included in the conditional collective.
Plaintiffs submitted declarations from the named plaintiffs describing common duties, unpaid hours, break practices, and bonus treatment; Kuta attested he worked for Telestars.
The court found Plaintiffs made the modest factual showing required at the notice stage and granted conditional certification as to Telestars, adopting the previously issued notice schedule.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs meet the FLSA "similarly situated" standard for conditional certification	Named plaintiffs say they and putative members performed same duties, worked >40 hrs, were unpaid for off‑the‑clock work, and had commissions excluded from OT	Telestars contends plaintiffs are not similarly situated and Plaintiffs never worked for Telestars	Granted: court finds modest factual showing satisfied; conditional certification appropriate
Whether Telestars is a proper defendant for inclusion in the collective notice	Kuta and complaint identify Kuta as Telestars employee; plaintiffs seek notice to Telestars employees	Telestars argues plaintiffs never worked for it so it should be excluded	Granted: court accepts evidence that Kuta worked for Telestars and includes Telestars in notice
Whether Kuta’s declaration is conclusory and should be ignored	Plaintiffs rely on Kuta’s affidavit describing workplace conditions similar to Comer affidavits	Telestars argues affidavit is conclusory and insufficient	Rejected: court treats the affidavit as adequate at the notice stage; merits/credibility not decided now
Whether a three‑year FLSA statute of limitations should apply for notice period	Plaintiffs seek three‑year opt‑in window (willful violation)	Telestars argues three‑year period is improper and merits review needed	Rejected at this stage: court declines to resolve statute‑of‑limitations dispute now; defendant may renew later

Comer v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 454 F.3d 544 (6th Cir. 2006) (establishes two‑stage FLSA collective certification and the "modest factual showing" standard at notice stage)
O'Brien v. Ed Donnelly Enters., 575 F.3d 567 (6th Cir. 2009) (collective actions permitted when claims are unified by common theories despite individualized proofs)
Campbell‑Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016) (Supreme Court decision cited as abrogating certain procedural points cited in related authority)
Morisky v. Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 111 F. Supp. 2d 493 (D.N.J. 2000) (describes typical conditional certification outcome and lenient notice‑stage standard)
Kinder v. MAC Mfg. Inc., 318 F. Supp. 3d 1041 (N.D. Ohio 2018) (holds merits and statute‑of‑limitations issues are generally inappropriate to resolve at the notice stage)