Jackson v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n
181 F. Supp. 3d 1044
N.D. Ga.2016Background
- Plaintiff Cassie Jackson (and several opt-in plaintiffs) sued under the FLSA alleging unpaid overtime for credit underwriters placed at Fannie Mae’s Atlanta office by staffing vendors; Jackson was placed by Open Systems.
- Plaintiffs allege Fannie Mae misclassified staffing-agency underwriters as independent contractors (while treating comparable underwriters as W-2 employees), imposed production quotas that required >40 hours/week, and maintained an unwritten practice discouraging reporting overtime.
- Plaintiffs submitted declarations from multiple former underwriters and several consent-to-join forms; to date only one staffing vendor (Open Systems) is a named defendant, but Fannie Mae contracted with eight vendors.
- Fannie Mae produced declarations asserting written policies requiring contractors to report all minutes worked, that vendors controlled payroll, and that Fannie Mae only verified vendor time reports; Fannie Mae also retroactively paid overtime to its own W-2 underwriters after reclassification.
- The Court applied the Eleventh Circuit two-stage collective-action framework (lenient notice/conditional-certification stage) and found plaintiffs made a sufficient preliminary showing that (1) the prospective class members are similarly situated and (2) other employees want to opt in.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to conditionally certify a §216(b) collective action and authorize notice | Jackson: declarations and consents show similarly situated underwriters subject to common Fannie Mae practices requiring off-the-clock overtime | Fannie Mae/Open Systems: factual differences (different vendors, written policies, lack of joint-employer status) defeat similarity at certification | Granted: court conditionally certified the collective action and ordered notice (with modifications) under the lenient first-stage standard |
| Whether Fannie Mae is a joint employer with staffing vendors | Jackson: Fannie Mae controlled production quotas, supervision, time-authorization, facility use, and influenced pay/continued employment, supporting joint-employer status | Fannie Mae: vendors, not Fannie Mae, were responsible for payroll and Fannie Mae lacked employer control | Court: decline to decide finally but found plaintiffs have plausibly alleged joint-employer factors sufficient for notice-stage certification; joint-employer is a merits/fact issue for later stages |
| Whether plaintiffs showed a common unlawful policy or plan (de facto policy of off-the-clock work) | Jackson: uniform on-site production quotas and manager instructions discouraged overtime reporting; declarations describe common practice | Fannie Mae: isolated rogue managers, written policies require reporting, and production goals do not imply unreported overtime by all | Court: plaintiff’s evidence overcomes the lenient notice-stage burden; factual disputes (rogue vs. systemic) are for later stages |
| Whether tolling of limitations for opt-ins was required | Jackson: sought tolling to preserve claims of current/future opt-ins pending certification ruling | Defendants: opposed; not necessary if notice is ordered | Court: denied tolling without prejudice as unnecessary because certification and notice will proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1989) (district courts may authorize notice in FLSA collective actions)
- Hipp v. Liberty Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 252 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2001) (two-stage certification framework and lenient notice-stage standard)
- Morgan v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., 551 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2008) (discussing conditional certification and decertification stages)
- Grayson v. K-Mart Corp., 79 F.3d 1086 (11th Cir. 1996) (similarity standard at notice stage does not require identical positions)
- Anderson v. Cagle’s, Inc., 488 F.3d 945 (11th Cir. 2007) (decertification-stage considerations and heavier burden)
- Aimable v. Long & Scott Farms, 20 F.3d 434 (11th Cir. 1994) (economic-reality factors for employer status)
- Layton v. DHL Exp. (USA), Inc., 686 F.3d 1172 (11th Cir. 2012) (applying multi-factor test to joint-employer analysis)
- Antenor v. D & S Farms, 88 F.3d 925 (11th Cir. 1996) (no single factor is dispositive in economic-reality inquiry)
- Goldberg v. Whitaker House Co-op., Inc., 366 U.S. 28 (U.S. 1961) (economic-reality test for employment relationship)