Parker v. Silverleaf Resorts Inc, 3:14-cv-02075

Background

Four former Silverleaf sales employees sued under the FLSA alleging unpaid overtime and flawed timekeeping; they worked as commission-paid Outside Sales (titles like sales representative/closer) at several resort locations prior to Orange Lake’s acquisition of Silverleaf.
Plaintiffs sought conditional (§216(b)) collective-action certification covering all non-exempt sales employees who worked onsite at defendants’ resorts; defendants opposed and moved to strike plaintiffs’ declarations.
Substantial discovery had occurred over ~28 months (document productions, interrogatories, depositions of the four named plaintiffs), prompting dispute over whether a lenient notice-stage standard or a more stringent standard should apply.
Plaintiffs relied on their declarations and deposition excerpts showing managers instructed sales staff to record ~40 hours and take/record lunches not actually taken; defendants produced employee handbooks stating employees must record actual time and some “happy camper” declarations stating timekeeping was accurate.
The court applied an intermediate/heightened notice-stage standard (given the substantial discovery), denied the motion to strike the declarations in whole, and found plaintiffs provided sufficient evidence to conditionally certify a limited collective.
The certified class was limited to commission-paid Outside Sales employees who worked at four resorts (The Villages, Lake O’ The Woods, Piney Shores, and Fox River) during the three years before certification up to each resort’s Orange Lake rebranding; 60-day opt-in period after production of contact info.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper standard for conditional certification	Apply lenient notice-stage standard because depositions of corporate reps hadn’t been taken and discovery remained	Apply more stringent standard because ~28 months of discovery and extensive document production occurred	Court applied an intermediate/heightened notice-stage standard (more stringent than minimal) given substantial discovery
Motion to strike plaintiffs’ declarations	Declarations reflect personal observations and support conditional certification	Declarations are boilerplate, contradict deposition testimony, include hearsay and lack foundation — should be stricken	Court denied motion to strike; statements about declarants’ own experiences admissible for certification; contested breadth for other locations addressed in certification analysis
Whether plaintiffs are similarly situated to potential class members company‑wide	Sales employees nationwide were subject to a common practice/policy avoiding overtime (off-the-clock work, forced lunch entries, 40-hour caps)	Jobs, supervisors, pay practices and timekeeping varied by resort/department; written policies disavow off-the-clock work; individualized inquiries needed	Plaintiffs showed a common policy only at four resorts (The Villages, Lake O’ The Woods, Piney Shores, Fox River); insufficient evidence to certify company-wide or for Orange Lake-era employees
Scope, period, and notice logistics of conditional certification	Condition should cover all Outside Sales commissioned employees nationwide and 90-day opt-in	Limit class geographically and temporally; contest broad notice	Court conditionally certified a class limited to commission-paid Outside Sales at the four resorts pre-Orange Lake acquisition; opt-in period 60 days after defendants produce contact information; defendants to produce employee info by set date or face tolling consequences

Key Cases Cited

Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1989) (district courts may facilitate notice for §216(b) collective actions)
Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 118 F.R.D. 351 (D.N.J. 1987) (two-step approach for FLSA collective certification: notice stage and decertification stage)
Mooney v. Aramco Servs. Co., 54 F.3d 1207 (5th Cir. 1995) (discussion of notice- and decertification-stage standards; no rigid test mandated)
Valcho v. Dallas Cty. Hosp. Dist., 574 F. Supp. 2d 618 (N.D. Tex. 2008) (courts may apply a more stringent standard when certification-related discovery is substantial)
McKnight v. D. Houston, Inc., 756 F. Supp. 2d 794 (S.D. Tex. 2010) (consideration of plaintiffs’ showing of interest and scope when certifying across multiple locations)
Jones v. SuperMedia Inc., 281 F.R.D. 282 (N.D. Tex. 2012) (lenient standard at notice stage typically requires only substantial allegations of a common policy)
Hernandez v. Robert Dering Constr., LLC, 191 F. Supp. 3d 675 (S.D. Tex. 2016) (discussing standards for conditional certification and need for factual nexus)