945 F. Supp. 2d 995
N.D. Ind.2013Background
- Roberts filed an FLSA collective action on her behalf and others similarly situated.
- Court addressed Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (12(b)(2), 12(b)(6)) and related motions, granting in part and denying in part.
- Amended complaint removed two defendants and the overtime claim, but kept minimum wage claims for tipped employees.
- Plaintiff alleges tip credits were improperly used for servers, bartenders, hosts; also alleges Defendants failed to inform employees of tip credit provisions.
- Court found dual-occupation theory insufficient without more factual specifics and denied notice certification for a collective action at this stage.
- Court unresolved regarding notice to similarly-situated employees and tolling request, proceeding with a limited viable claim against three entities as joint employers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dual-occupation claims state a minimum wage violation | Roberts argues dishwashing/food prep duties outside tipped occupation may require minimum wage | Defendants contend duties are incidental to tipped occupation or not sufficiently proven | Plaintiff failed to plead plausible dual-occupation claim |
| Whether notice to similarly-situated employees may be authorized as a collective action | Roberts seeks conditional certification under §216(b) for notice | Defendants oppose notice due to lack of similarly-situated employees | Notice not authorized at this time; collective action not viable on the record presented |
| Whether Apple Sauce, Inc., CJ Apple I, Inc., and Smith are liable as employers under FLSA | Plaintiff asserts joint employer theory as to control and ownership | Defendants argue insufficient factual basis for employer status | Court finds potential for joint-employer liability but not for notice/collective-action relief; viable as individual employers for separate claim |
| Whether equitable tolling applies to extend limitations for putative class members | Equitable tolling should prevent future claim bars due to lack of notice | No extraordinary circumstances shown; tolling inappropriate | Equitable tolling denied; no tolling of limitations for potential collective action |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (Sup. Ct. 1989) (authority for court to issue judicial notice in collective actions)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (pleading standard: plausibility required)
- Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Sup. Ct. 2009) (pleading must be plausible, not mere conclusory)
- Myers v. Copper Cellar, 192 F.3d 546 (6th Cir. 1999) (illustrates tipping vs. non-tipped duties; aid in dual-occupation analysis)
- Kilgore v. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, 160 F.3d 294 (6th Cir. 1998) (tip credit notice; dual jobs considerations)
- Fast v. Applebee’s Int’l, Inc., 638 F.3d 872 (8th Cir. 2011) (20% rule for related non-tipped duties; handbook interpretation)
- Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400 (7th Cir. 2010) (requires sufficient detail to state a plausible complex claim)
- Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 920 F.2d 446 (7th Cir. 1990) (equitable tolling and discovery of claim information; rare applicability)
- Russell v. Ill. Bell Tel. Co., 575 F. Supp. 2d 930 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (modest showing required to demonstrate similarly situated plaintiffs)
- Solis v. Int’l Detective & Protective Serv., Ltd., 819 F. Supp. 2d 740 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (corporate officer liability under FLSA; control and ownership)
- Dole v. Elliott Travel & Tours, Inc., 942 F.2d 962 (6th Cir. 1991) (employer liability for FLSA violations; agency theory)
- Donovan v. Agnew, 712 F.2d 1509 (1st Cir. 1983) (employee-employer liability standards under FLSA)
- Lambert v. Ackerley, 180 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 1999) (individual liability of corporate officers)
- U.S. Dep’t of Labor v. Cole Enters., Inc., 62 F.3d 775 (6th Cir. 1995) (departmental guidance on employment practices)