Morangelli v. Chemed Corp.
275 F.R.D. 99
E.D.N.Y2011Background
- Plaintiffs move to certify a nationwide class on three claims and to include seven opt-in plaintiffs in the FLSA collective action.
- The proposed class covers technicians at 34 branches across 14 states who are paid on commission; hourly technicians are excluded.
- Plaintiffs allege FLSA and state law violations: (i) business expenses lowering wages below minimums, (ii) uncompensated hours including turn-in, meetings, and vehicle/work equipment maintenance, and (iii) illegal wage deductions.
- Seven individuals seek to opt in; two are granted joiners by consent, five await affidavits for further review.
- Defendants contend differences across states/branches defeat predominance and manageability, while plaintiffs advance a single set of common issues and a standardized trial plan.
- The court later bifurcates liability and damages, certifies liability class, and reserves damages issues for separate handling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Predominance under Rule 23(b)(3) for business expenses | Expenses were common work-related deductions harming all, via substantiated expenses. | Variations in expenses and state law undermine common proof and predominate. | Common questions predominate; liability class certified for business expenses. |
| Predominance under Rule 23(b)(3) for uncompensated hours | Turn-in, meetings, van/equipment maintenance time are universal work time; records enable class-wide proof. | Unknowns about duration and branch-specific practices require individualized proof. | Predominance shown; class definition amended to exclude maintenance of vans/tools (later reconsidered in reconsideration ruling). |
| Predominance under Rule 23(b)(3) for illegal deductions | Common policy of reversing commissions without contemporaneous authorization affects all states similarly. | Deductions vary by state and branch; some require authorization; liability may hinge on state-specific rules. | Common questions predominate; liability can be adjudicated on a class-wide basis. |
| Superiority and manageability of nationwide state-law class | Minor state-law differences do not defeat a nationwide class given common core facts. | State-law differences create manageability and outcome-determinative concerns. | Court finds class action superior; can manage differences via formulas and state-specific adjustments. |
| Damages methodology in a certified liability class | Representational damages evidence should be permissible given defendant records. | Damages should be severed and handled separately; representational proof discouraged. | Damages severed; liability certified on a class-wide basis with separate damages proceedings to follow. |
Key Cases Cited
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (Supreme Court, 1997) (class certification requires rigorous analysis and predominance)
- In re Nassau County Strip Search Cases, 461 F.3d 219 (2d Cir. 2006) (predominance aided by simple, records-based class-wide proofs)
- Gortat v. Capala Bros., 257 F.R.D. 353 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (considerations of commonality and predominance in class actions)
- Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litig., 280 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2001) (predominance and common issues central to certification)
- Bridgestone/Firestone Inc. Tires Prods. Liab. Litig., 288 F.3d 1012 (7th Cir. 2002) (multistate class considerations and efficiency in certification)
- Barrus v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., 732 F. Supp. 2d 243 (W.D.N.Y. 2010) (off-the-clock claims, time-shaving, and class certification nuances)