Kinder v. MAC Mfg. Inc., 318 F. Supp. 3d 1041

Defendants MAC Manufacturing Inc. and MAC Trailer Enterprises employ welders who assemble trailers; plaintiff Travis Kinder worked as a welder from Jan. 30, 2017 to June 26, 2017.
Kinder alleges Defendants required welders to perform unpaid pre- and post-shift tasks (e.g., donning/doffing PPE, obtaining/putting away tools, logging into systems, cleanup, walking to work areas) and failed to pay overtime at 1.5x for hours over 40/week.
Kinder filed an FLSA collective-action suit and moved for conditional certification, expedited opt-in discovery, and court-supervised notice to similarly situated welders (class period from July 28, 2014 to present).
At the notice stage Kinder submitted declarations and six opt-in consent notices; Defendants challenged similarity, scope of contact information production, and the three-year (willful) statute of limitations.
The court applied the FLSA two-step collective-action framework, found Kinder made the required "modest factual showing" that he and other welders share a common theory of liability, and granted conditional certification and production of names, addresses, emails, phone numbers (with limits).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Conditional certification of collective action	Kinder contends welders are similarly situated: same duties, hourly non-exempt status, unpaid pre/post-shift work and unpaid overtime	Defendants argue proposed class is overbroad and not similarly situated (challenge to reliance on general "employees" vs. welders)	Granted — court found modest factual showing satisfied and common theory of liability present
Scope of contact discovery/notice methods	Seek names, addresses, emails, phone numbers, employment dates; propose notice by U.S. mail and email; phone used only if mail/email fail	Oppose production of phones/emails; urge single means of notice and caution against encouraging joiners	Granted — court approved mail and email notice and production of contact info (phones limited to fallback)
Separate treatment of current vs. former employees for notice	Kinder: same notice methods effective for both current and former employees	Defendants: different methods should apply to current and former employees	Rejected — court approved same mail and email notice for current and former employees
Application of three-year (willful) statute of limitations	Kinder alleges willfulness to reach three-year period	Defendants: bare allegation of willfulness insufficient at this stage	Rejected as premature — merits (including willfulness) reserved for later stage

Comer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 454 F.3d 544 (6th Cir. 2006) (two-step FLSA collective action framework and opt-in requirement)
Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1989) (courts may supervise notice in collective actions but must avoid encouraging participation)
McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1988) (definition of "willful" for extended FLSA statute of limitations)
O'Brien v. Ed Donnelly Enterprises, Inc., 575 F.3d 567 (6th Cir. 2009) (plaintiffs are similarly situated where claims are unified by common theory of statutory violation)