Lewis v. Huntington National Bank
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55329
| S.D. Ohio | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs allege Huntington underpaid overtime to Mortgage Loan Officers under two pay plans and deducted non-recoverable amounts from draws.
- This action seeks overtime violations under the FLSA, plus Ohio Wage Act and Ohio Prompt Pay Act claims, on behalf of a Nationwide Class and an Ohio Subclass.
- Huntington reclassified MLOs as non-exempt in 2010 and began back-wage calculations and interviews in 2011 with Acknowledgment forms for overtime hours.
- Plaintiffs seek conditional class certification under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), expedited discovery, and court-supervised notice for opt-ins.
- Plaintiffs also move for a protective/cease-and-desist order to address alleged coercive back-wage processes and potential retaliation against joiners.
- The court grants in part the conditional class certification and grants in part the emergency motion, with specific limitations and future briefing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conditional FLSA class certification is proper. | Lewis: MLOs share common duties and payment systems under Plan or Salary Plan. | Huntington: merits defense pending; discovery incomplete; shape of class uncertain. | Granted in part: nationwide FLSA conditional certification. |
| Whether Acknowledgments affect FLSA rights or can be voided. | Acknowledgments were coercive; FLSA rights cannot be contractually waived privately. | Acknowledgments are not settlements or waivers; no need to void them. | Denied declaration that Acknowledgments are void. |
| Whether court-supervised notice with corrective language is appropriate. | Notice should be supervised and reflect that Acknowledgments do not bar joinder and include corrective language. | Not explicitly stated; focus on fairness of notice. | Granted with corrective language; parties to submit proposed notices/procedures. |
| Whether to impose restrictions on Huntington's communications with potential plaintiffs. | Limit coercive/retaliatory communications and disclosures to protect class formation. | Communications among parties are generally permissible; First Amendment concerns. | Restrictions held in abeyance; defendant must respond to retaliation allegations within 30 days. |
| Whether plaintiffs are entitled to costs or sanctions on the emergency motion. | Seek costs for emergency motion and remedial notice mailing. | No authority shown for sanctions; oppose costs. | Costs denied; no sanctions awarded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffmann-La Roche v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989) (court has supervisory power over class actions)
- Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89 (1981) (courts may issue orders to manage class actions)
- Walton v. United Consumers Club, 786 F.2d 303 (7th Cir. 1986) (FLSA private settlements prohibited)
- Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., 450 U.S. 728 (1981) (FLSA rights cannot be waived privately)
- Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir. 1982) (private settlements of FLSA back wages are limited)
- Comer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 454 F.3d 544 (6th Cir. 2006) (modest showing suffices for conditional certification)
- M.L. Stern Overtime Litig., 250 F.R.D. 492 (S.D. Cal. 2008) (court approved class action discovery and notice approaches)