271 F.R.D. 465
E.D.N.C.2010Background
- This is an FLSA and NCWHA wage action arising from Prestage Foods' St. Pauls, North Carolina turkey plant.
- Named plaintiffs allege Prestage paid only for line-time, omitting hours actually worked, including donning/doffing gear, gear cleaning, and time spent walking/waiting.
- Plaintiffs seek conditional certification the FLSA collective and Rule 23 class certification for state-law NCWHA claims.
- Plaintiffs propose a broad class; the court narrows it to production line employees paid on a line-time basis.
- Court considers FLSA conditional certification, supplemental jurisdiction over state claims, and Rule 23 certification standards.
- Court grants conditional certification and approves pursuing NCWHA class and FLSA collective, with class notices to be revised.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FLSA conditional certification is proper | Plaintiffs argue all line-time workers share a common policy under which wages were underpaid. | Prestage contends class must be limited and factual variances prevent similar situated analysis. | Conditionally certified the FLSA collective. |
| Whether the class should be limited to production line employees paid on line time | Class should include those affected by line-time pay practices. | Definitions risk including non-line-time workers with different pay schemes. | Class narrowed to production line employees paid on a line-time basis. |
| Whether supplemental jurisdiction over NCWHA state claims is appropriate | State claims share nucleus of operative fact with FLSA claims. | Joint treatment may overstep congressional intent and risk separate proceedings. | Court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over NCWHA claims. |
| Whether the NCWHA class should be certified under Rule 23 | Class actions promote economy; wage claims are appropriate for Rule 23. | Issues may be better handled separately; risks of misalignment with opt-in/opt-out. | Rule 23 certification granted for NCWHA claims; class defined as described. |
| Under which Rule 23 sub-sections certification should be granted | Certification under 23(b)(1) and/or 23(b)(3) is appropriate. | Arguments against 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(3) certification in this context. | Certification approved under Rule 23(b)(3); (b)(1) non-suited. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thiessen v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp., 267 F.3d 1095 (10th Cir.2001) (lenient standard for conditional certification)
- Vaszlavik v. Storage Tech. Corp., 175 F.R.D. 672 (D.Colo.1997) (framework for similarly situated inquiry)
- De Luna-Guerrero v. NC Grower’s Ass’n, Inc., 338 F.Supp.2d 649 (E.D.N.C.2004) (definition of similarly situated in §216(b))
- Bouaphakeo v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 564 F.Supp.2d 870 (N.D. Iowa 2008) (contextual guidance on Rule 23 and class treatment)
- Lindsay v. Gov’t Employees Ins. Co., 448 F.3d 416 (D.C.Cir.2006) (opt-in vs opt-out in related jurisdictional questions)
- Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., 623 F.3d 743 (9th Cir.2010) (permissible discretionary exercise of supplemental jurisdiction)
- De Asencio v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 342 F.3d 301 (3d Cir.2003) (discussion of supplemental jurisdiction limits)
- Salazar v. Agriprocessors, Inc., 527 F.Supp.2d 873 (N.D. Iowa 2007) (treatment of related wage claims in pendent context)
- Zelaya v. J.M. Macias, Inc., 999 F.Supp.778 (E.D.N.C.1998) (earlier stance on pendent jurisdiction in donning/doffing actions)