Moore v. Eagle Sanitation, Inc.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77126
| E.D.N.Y | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs Kevin Moore and Roger Snyder sue Eagle Sanitation Inc. and Michael Reali under the FLSA and NYLL for unpaid overtime and minimum wages.
- Plaintiffs move for conditional certification of an FLSA collective action, production of potential opt-in members' contact information, and court authorization to post a Notice of Pendency and Consent to Join.
- Moore and Snyder allege other employees performed similar work and were not properly compensated for overtime; affidavits name additional co-workers.
- Defendants oppose, arguing lack of affidavits from third parties and insufficient evidence of being similarly situated.
- Court applies a lenient first-step standard and grants conditional certification, allows six-year contact-information look-back, and approves notice procedures and dissemination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs are 'similarly situated' for conditional certification | Moore and Snyder show a common policy denying overtime. | Defendants contend affidavits are insufficient to show similarity. | Yes; court grants conditional certification. |
| Whether to compel production of potential opt-ins' names and addresses | Six-year look-back appropriate; facilitates notice and joinder. | Limit to three years under FLSA unless NYLL claims joinable. | Production ordered for six-year period; 21-day deadline set. |
| Form and scope of Notice of Pendency and Consent to Join | Notice should inform potential plaintiffs and allow opt-in without prejudicing defenses. | Notice should be limited and include defenses and other specifics. | Notice approved with tailored content; 60-day opt-in period; further language adjustments deemed reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sobczak v. AWL Indus., Inc., 540 F. Supp. 2d 354 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (evidentiary standard for conditional certification is lenient; affidavits can support notice)
- Zivali v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 646 F. Supp. 2d 658 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (courts may rely on plaintiffs' declarations despite hearsay or conclusory content)
- Realite v. Ark Restaurants Corp., 7 F. Supp. 2d 303 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (supports nexus requirement for similarly situated finding)
- Fasanelli v. Heartland Brewery, Inc., 516 F. Supp. 2d 317 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (upholds conditional certification despite evidentiary challenges)
- Patton v. Thomson Corp., 364 F. Supp. 2d 263 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (granting conditional certification where named plaintiffs' affidavits sufficient)
- Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1989) (district courts have broad discretion in form of notice under § 216(b))