Myers v. Marietta Memorial Hospital, 201 F. Supp. 3d 884

Background

Plaintiffs Lynnett Myers, Carol Butler, and Arva Lowther (former nurses) sued Memorial Health System and affiliated hospitals under the FLSA (and state wage law), alleging an automatic 30-minute meal deduction for direct-patient-care hourly staff even when breaks were missed, resulting in unpaid overtime.
Plaintiffs seek conditional collective certification for "all current and former hourly employees responsible for direct patient care" subject to the automatic meal deduction during the three years before notice approval.
Plaintiffs submitted three near-identical affidavits describing routine interruption of meal periods, discouragement or reprimands for cancelling automatic deductions, and that the automatic deduction applied systemwide to direct-patient-care staff.
Defendants submitted 29 largely identical affidavits asserting employees were properly paid and could report interrupted breaks (some affidavits included disputed or inapplicable roles); defendants argued plaintiffs offered only speculation, too few affidavits, and a vague class definition.
The Magistrate Judge compelled plaintiffs’ depositions and denied expedited discovery; plaintiffs sought reconsideration and a stay. The District Court granted conditional certification, denied reconsideration and stay as moot, and ordered the parties to confer on notice and opt-in procedures.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Whether to grant conditional collective certification under the FLSA	Plaintiffs made the modest factual showing that direct-patient-care hourly employees are similarly situated because of a common automatic meal-deduction policy and routine interrupted breaks	Defendants said plaintiffs’ affidavits are speculative, too few, and class definition ("direct patient care") is vague and overbroad	Court granted conditional certification — plaintiffs met the lenient, first-stage "modest factual showing" standard
2. Whether the Court may consider employer-collected affidavits at the conditional stage	Plaintiffs argued such affidavits are of limited value and should not defeat conditional certification, particularly before depositions/discovery	Defendants urged the Court to rely on their affidavits to show lack of common practice	Court declined to credit defendants’ affidavits at this stage, noting potential coercion and that weighing competing affidavits would require improper credibility determinations
3. Whether a minimum number/percentage of affidavits is required for certification	Plaintiffs argued no bright-line numeric showing is required at the conditional stage; discovery follows certification	Defendants urged a percentage-based threshold given class size and contrary affidavits	Court rejected a bright-line percentage rule and declined to import the stricter Rule 23–style standard into the first phase; discovery/decertification is the remedy if warranted
4. Whether Magistrate Judge erred in ordering plaintiffs’ depositions and denying expedited discovery	Plaintiffs sought bifurcated discovery and protection from depositions before conditional certification	Defendants sought depositions and opposed expedited discovery	Court held the reconsideration and stay motions moot because depositions had not yet occurred and conditional certification was granted; no reversible error shown under Rule 72(a)

Key Cases Cited

Comer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 454 F.3d 544 (6th Cir. 2006) (describes FLSA collective-action two-step certification framework and lenient first-stage standard)
O’Brien v. Ed Donnelly Enters., Inc., 575 F.3d 567 (6th Cir. 2009) (explains "similarly situated" standard — common FLSA-violating policy suffices at first stage)
Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946) (FLSA remedial purpose and evidentiary leniency for proving uncompensated work)
Brooklyn Sav. Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697 (1945) (Congress enacted FLSA to protect employees lacking bargaining power)
Moran v. Al Basit LLC, 788 F.3d 201 (6th Cir. 2015) (discusses FLSA remedial purpose in circuit context)
Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, 135 S.Ct. 513 (2014) (supreme court discussion of scope of compensable work under FLSA)
Dunlop v. Carriage Carpet Co., 548 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1977) (characterizes FLSA as broadly remedial statute)