Meyer v. Panera Bread Co.
344 F. Supp. 3d 193
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiffs (assistant managers at Panera restaurants) allege they were misclassified as exempt from overtime under the FLSA and DCMWA, worked >40 hours/week, and were denied overtime; they seek collective relief (nationwide FLSA collective excluding NY, NJ, CA, MA; a D.C. collective for pre-2/27/2015 period).
- Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for conditional certification supported by declarations from multiple assistant managers around the country and ancillary evidence (job postings); Panera opposed and sought to strike certain declarations.
- The Magistrate Judge applied the two-stage collective-certification framework and the low "modest factual showing" standard for conditional certification at stage one.
- Plaintiffs’ evidence: similar declarations across seven states describing mostly non-managerial duties, corporate control over restaurant policies, and corporate labor-cost controls causing assistant managers to perform hourly tasks; some internal reclassification in 2016 to non-exempt status.
- Panera argued the declarations are unreliable, duties vary by location, DOL audits found no violations, many employees signed arbitration agreements, and contested the proposed notice period and data production requests.
- Ruling: court granted conditional certification in part (FLSA and DCMWA collectives), set the notice period, and resolved several notice/data-production disputes (email allowed; social security numbers denied; 60-day opt-in with 30-day reminder; parties to meet on final notice language).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conditional certification of nationwide FLSA collective (exempt misclassification) | Plaintiffs: declarations and job postings show a common de facto policy (corporate labor-control) causing assistant managers nationwide to perform non-managerial work and be unpaid overtime. | Panera: declarants are unreliable, duties vary by location, prior DOL audits found no violations, Epic Systems/arbitration and exemption defenses undermine collective treatment. | Granted (conditionally). Plaintiffs met the low stage‑one showing of a common unlawful practice; merits, credibility, arbitration enforceability, and individualized defenses reserved for decertification. |
| Conditional certification of DCMWA collective (D.C. claims pre-2/27/2015) | Plaintiffs: same facts support a D.C. collective for the opt-in period before the statute allowed opt-out class suits. | Panera: no distinct argument that merits denial under D.C. law; challenges mirror FLSA defenses. | Granted. Court treated DCMWA conditional-certification standard as similar to FLSA and certified the D.C. collective for the requested pre-2/27/2015 period. |
| Temporal scope / notice period for FLSA collective | Plaintiffs: start date March 25, 2014 (three‑year willful FLSA limitations period plus 249 days tolling agreement); end date = date of the opinion (reclassification incomplete/unverified). | Panera: disputes relation-back, willfulness, applicability/meaning of the tolling agreement, and contends reclassification completed Nov 16, 2016. | Granted as Plaintiffs requested. Court assumed relation back and willfulness at stage one, credited Plaintiffs’ plausible tolling interpretation, allowed notice from 3/25/2014 through the opinion date; timeliness challenges left for decertification/individual review. |
| Notice methods and data production | Plaintiffs: request names, addresses, phones, emails, dates/locations of employment, SSNs for returned mail; send notice by mail/email, 60-day opt-in, reminder notice, website, pay-envelope distribution. | Panera: limit production to names and addresses; oppose email/text/pay-envelope/website and 60-day opt-in; warn of privacy/contamination and arbitration complications. | Mixed. Court ordered production of names, addresses, employment dates and locations, and last-known email addresses (not phone numbers); denied SSNs and pay-envelope notice and website; approved first-class mail and email, 60-day opt-in, and a 30-day reminder by mail/email. Parties must meet and confer to finalize notice forms. |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers v. Hertz Corp., 624 F.3d 537 (2d Cir.) (two‑stage conditional certification framework)
- Castillo v. P & R Enters., Inc., 517 F. Supp. 2d 440 (D.D.C.) (modest factual showing standard for conditional certification)
- Stephens v. Farmers Rest. Grp., 291 F. Supp. 3d 95 (D.D.C. 2018) (treatment of FLSA/DCMWA notice and electronic notice guidance)
- Dinkel v. MedStar Health, Inc., 880 F. Supp. 2d 49 (D.D.C.) (stage‑one notice inquiry description)
- Puglisi v. TD Bank, N.A., 998 F. Supp. 2d 95 (E.D.N.Y.) (nationwide conditional certification based on multiple declarations and job postings)
- Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (U.S.) (arbitration agreements and collective‑action waiver context)
- Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 138 S. Ct. 1134 (U.S.) (standard for construing FLSA exemptions)