SCHELHAS v. HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH, INC.
2:23-cv-02466
| D.N.J. | Nov 6, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Alan Schelhas filed a putative FLSA collective action alleging that Hackensack Meridian Health (HMH) (1) applied an automatic meal-period deduction after May 4, 2020 regardless of whether breaks were taken, and (2) improperly calculated shift differentials, hazard pay, or bonuses. Schelhas worked for HMH as a patient care technician (May 2014–Nov. 2022).
- Schelhas moved for conditional certification and to send notice on Sept. 18, 2023; HMH moved for limited discovery on Sept. 27, 2023 seeking foundational factual evidence before certification given the potentially large (≈20,000) putative collective and potential union/CBAs.
- The Court administratively terminated the conditional-certification motion pending resolution of the limited-discovery request and invited the parties to consider tolling the statute of limitations or to seek equitable tolling if no stipulation is reached.
- The Court found that limited discovery before ruling on conditional certification is standard and appropriate in this District and elsewhere in the Third Circuit to develop a record and avoid repeated premature certification motions.
- The Court granted HMH’s limited-discovery motion in part, directed the parties to submit a joint limited-discovery schedule by Nov. 13, 2023, set the limited discovery period to end Jan. 16, 2024, and allowed Schelhas to refile a conditional-certification motion on or after Jan. 17, 2024.
- The Court encouraged cooperation, warned against overbroad discovery requests or delay, suggested the parties stipulate to toll limitations during limited discovery, and indicated it would not extend the 60-day period absent extraordinary circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether limited discovery should be permitted before a conditional-certification ruling | Schelhas: unnecessary, dilatory, and seeks to prematurely litigate merits | HMH: limited discovery is common and necessary to determine if named plaintiff is "similarly situated," given scale and multiple facilities | Court: granted limited discovery in part; it's standard practice and beneficial to a developed record |
| Scope and duration of limited discovery | Schelhas: fears overbroad probing beyond conditional-certification issues | HMH: sought 90 days to conduct limited discovery (documents, limited depositions) | Court: limited to issue of conditional certification; set discovery at 60 days ending Jan. 16, 2024, and required a joint schedule by Nov. 13, 2023 |
| Prejudice and statute-of-limitations concerns from delay | Schelhas: delay could prejudice opt-in plaintiffs and run statutes of limitations | HMH: court can later retroactively toll limitations for properly joined individuals | Court: encouraged stipulation to toll; allowed Schelhas leave to move for equitable tolling if no stipulation; acknowledged tolling motion likely viewed favorably |
| Whether defendant overreached by addressing merits in its briefing | Schelhas: HMH's reply improperly argued merits and similarity issues reserved for conditional-certification motion | HMH: replied to justify limited discovery and its position | Court: noted some overreaching but found it unpersuasive and proceeded to focus limited discovery on conditional-certification issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. DNC Servs. Corp., 275 F. Supp. 3d 579 (E.D. Pa. 2017) (observing that plaintiffs generally seek conditional certification following limited discovery)