Madison v. United Site Services of Florida, Inc., 6:16-cv-01991

Background

Plaintiff Jermaine Madison sued United Site Services of Florida, Inc. under the FLSA alleging unpaid overtime due to an automatic lunch-time deduction policy for employees who worked through lunch.
Two opt-in plaintiffs (McLendon and Taylor) joined; plaintiff sought conditional certification of an FLSA collective.
Parties filed a joint stipulation to conditionally certify a collective of service technicians and pick-up and delivery technicians who worked at the Orlando location within the past three years and claim unpaid overtime from automatic lunch deductions.
The magistrate judge found the technician positions sufficiently similar and that the lenient first-stage FLSA standard was met for conditional certification.
The parties’ proposed notice and consent form were largely acceptable, but omitted firm deadlines tied to the date of certification; the court required those dates to be set from the date of the certification order.
The court approved production of a list of potential opt-in plaintiffs within five business days of the certification order, declined to stay all discovery through the opt-in period, and otherwise denied the revised joint motion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the case should be conditionally certified as an FLSA collective	Madison argued that he and other technicians were similarly situated because both roles primarily involve driving and are subject to the same automatic lunch-deduction policy	Defendant stipulated to conditional certification but did not oppose previously	Granted: court conditionally certified a collective of service technicians and pick-up/delivery technicians at Orlando location for the 3 years before the certification order
Whether pick-up/delivery technicians may be included though plaintiff was a service technician	Positions are ‘similar, not identical’ and duties overlap (driving to service/deliver portable restrooms)	No meaningful opposition in stipulation	Granted: inclusion of both job titles is appropriate
Adequacy and timing of notice and consent form (deadlines omitted)	Proposed notice acceptable in substance; requested 45-day opt-in period and first-class mailing	Stipulated procedure; left deadlines contingent on notice issuance date	Modified: court approved notice but required plaintiff to set (i) claim accrual start date and (ii) consent deadline measured from the date of the court’s certification order
Whether discovery should be stayed through the opt-in period	Parties stipulated to stay all discovery until opt-in period ends	No separate adversarial position presented; but court evaluates prejudice/timing	Denied: court found no good cause to stay discovery and directed discovery may proceed
Production of potential opt-in list	Requested defendant produce list of names, addresses, hire/termination dates, last job title for 3-year period	Defendant agreed to produce list within five business days of order	Granted: court ordered defendant to provide the list within five business days after certification order

Key Cases Cited

Morgan v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., 551 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2008) (endorses two-step FLSA collective-certification framework)
Hipp v. Liberty Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 252 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2001) (describes lenient notice-stage standard for conditional certification)
Grayson v. K Mart Corp., 79 F.3d 1086 (11th Cir. 1996) (plaintiff’s job must be similar, not identical, to putative class)
Hoffmann‑La Roche, Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1989) (courts must ensure accurate, timely notice so employees can make informed opt-in decisions)
Billingsley v. Citi Trends, Inc., 560 F. App’x 914 (11th Cir. 2014) (district court has discretion over form and scope of FLSA notice)