Jenkins v. TJX Companies Inc.
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46394
| E.D.N.Y | 2012Background
- Plaintiff Jack Jenkins, an employee of TJX and HomeGoods, alleges misclassification of Assistant Store Managers as exempt from FLSA and NY labor overtime obligations.
- Jenkins worked as an ASM at HomeGoods Rockville Centre from Feb 2006, later promoted to Store Manager at Port Washington until July 2010.
- He commenced this suit on Aug 16, 2010, seeking overtime under FLSA and NY Labor Law as part of a putative collective action.
- Plaintiff moved on Aug 5, 2011 for conditional certification under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) to facilitate notice to potential opt-ins.
- Defendants opposed and submitted affidavits; Jenkins moved to strike those affidavits on Sept 9, 2011; Defendants cross-moved for attorney’s fees and costs on Sept 26, 2011.
- Court denied the motion for conditional certification without prejudice, denied the strike motion as moot, and denied the fees/costs cross-motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jenkins and putative class are 'similarly situated' for conditional certification | Jenkins argues uniform formal policy and nationwide duties render exemption improper | Defendants contend no substantial evidentiary basis shows a common unlawful policy | Denied conditional certification without prejudice |
| Whether a modest factual showing suffices to certify at the notice stage | Plaintiff asserts minimal showing is enough due to nationwide class | Defendants argue more evidence is required to show a common policy | Court requires modest, but not purely conclusory, showing; here not satisfied |
| Whether evidence beyond plaintiff’s testimony can establish a common policy | Plaintiff relies on a formal policy and consultant excerpt | Defendants argue lack of corroborating evidence of other ASMs' duties | Insufficient evidence to conclude a nationwide common policy; denial of certification |
| Whether the court should strike the defendants’ affidavits and award fees | Strike as irrelevant or prejudicial to motion | Affidavits support the defense; fees requested related to strike | Strike motion denied as moot; fees denied |
| Whether the court should certify a nationwide class at the first stage | Nationwide class justified by uniform job descriptions and classifications | Uniform descriptions alone do not prove 'similarly situated' without concrete evidence of non-exempt work | Certification denied without prejudice; potential re-filing with more evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1989) (not automatic; notice appropriate in limited cases)
- Sbarro, Inc. v. Heagney, 982 F. Supp. 249 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (notice stage requires identifiable nexus; not merits)
- Realite v. Ark Restaurants Corp., 7 F. Supp. 2d 303 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (modest factual showing of common policy)
- Guillen v. Marshalls of MA Inc., 750 F. Supp. 2d 469 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (denying nationwide certification where evidence lacking)
- Guillen v. Marshalls of MA Inc. (Guillen II), 841 F. Supp. 2d 797 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (rejects broad application of exempt policy without similar-situated evidence)
- Laroque v. Domino's Pizza LLC, 557 F. Supp. 2d 346 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (modest showing required; must show shared policy violating law)