Jesiek v. Fire Pros, Inc.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52220
W.D. Mich.2011Background
- Plaintiffs filed a complaint on February 12, 2009 alleging FLSA violations and retaliation; they contend hourly field employees were not properly paid for time worked over 40 hours per week.
- An amended complaint was filed March 30, 2009 with retaliation claims included.
- A Case Management Order issued April 15, 2009 setting discovery deadlines and a June 22, 2009 motion deadline for conditional certification, with a 30-day extension granted and the motion filed July 21, 2009.
- Fire Pros is a fire-protection company employing about 70 people, with 43 in field roles including installers, service technicians, and technicians handling alarm/kitchen hood systems.
- Plaintiffs (Erick Jesiek, David Jackson, Walter Steil, Christopher White, Darwin Joles, Tressia Skinner) are hourly, nonexempt sprinkler fitters; evidence shows travel time was paid but not counted toward overtime, while some other field employees reportedly share similar travel-pay practices.
- Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification and approves a proposed notice with a 45-day opt-in period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs are similarly situated to opt in as a collective | Plaintiffs show a common policy of not counting travel time toward overtime. | Fire Pros claims installers and other field employees are not uniformly situated; evidence limited to installers. | Yes; plaintiffs show a colorable basis for similarly situated employees. |
| Adequacy of evidence at the first-stage certification | Declarations from plaintiffs show other field employees share travel-time pay practices. | Some evidence is hearsay and not all employees are installers. | Sufficient to meet the modest first-stage showing. |
| Appropriateness of conditional certification and notice during discovery | Notice to potential opt-ins is appropriate to fulfill the purpose of discovery. | Opt-in window and scope of notice should be narrower; need to tailor to similarly situated employees. | Conditional certification granted with notice: 45-day opt-in period. |
| Two-stage certification framework in the Sixth Circuit | Two-stage approach is appropriate and widely used; discovery is ongoing. | No single mandated framework; some circuits differ. | Court applies the two-stage approach as the applicable method. |
Key Cases Cited
- Comer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 454 F.3d 544 (6th Cir. 2006) (discusses similarities required for § 216(b) collective actions and distinctions from Rule 23)
- O’Brien v. Ed Donnelly Enters., Inc., 575 F.3d 567 (6th Cir. 2009) (adopts the ‘similarly situated’ analysis and endorses two-stage framework by reference)
- Hipp v. Liberty Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 252 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2001) (endorsed two-stage process for collective actions under § 216(b))
- Thiessen v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp., 267 F.3d 1095 (10th Cir. 2001) (discusses two-stage certification approach in § 216(b) actions)