Ritter v. United States
24-1608
Fed. Cl.Mar 11, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Tyrone Ritter brings a collective Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) action on behalf of himself and similarly situated FEMA Damage Inspectors Program Specialists (Field Representative-Disaster Inspection, position codes QZ8252 and K23007) who worked since January 20, 2020.
- The parties jointly requested Court-ordered notice to potential collective action members and also sought a stay of proceedings once notice is issued.
- The Plaintiff and Defendant stipulated that the putative collective action members performed the same job under identical policies during the relevant timeframe.
- The procedural request was for Court approval of notifying these employees and for appropriate privacy protections regarding their contact information.
- The Court noted that the parties briefed the notice issue under an incorrect standard but issued a ruling based on the proper legal criteria for FLSA collective actions.
- The Court ordered issuance of notice to similarly situated employees and a stay of proceedings after notice is distributed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should FLSA collective action notice issue to similarly situated individuals? | Notice is appropriate based on job similarity and policies. | Agreed to issuance of notice if similarly situated standard met. | Granted; notice to all such employees authorized. |
| Is it necessary to apply conditional certification, or can the Court decide based on stipulations and record? | Requested a two-step conditional certification process. | Agreed with plaintiff on conditional certification, if required. | Court rejected conditional certification, applied correct standard regardless of parties' arguments. |
| Should plaintiff’s counsel receive contact information of potential opt-ins subject to a protective order? | Seeks disclosure with Court-approved protections. | Agrees, subject to appropriate protective order. | Granted as requested; parties to submit protective order. |
| Should case be stayed after notice issues? | Requested stay during opt-in period. | Agreed to stay. | Granted; case stayed post-notice until further order. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (authorizes court-approved notice to potential FLSA collective action members)
- Kamen v. Kemper Financial Services, Inc., 500 U.S. 90 (court must apply the correct legal standard regardless of parties' agreement)
