Sharma v. Burberry Ltd.
52 F. Supp. 3d 443
E.D.N.Y2014Background
- Plaintiffs allege Burberry underpaid SAs in overtime under FLSA and NYLL and seek conditional certification of a nationwide collective.
- Plaintiffs move for conditional certification, notice, and production of employee data; Burberry opposes and moves to strike.
- Two New York locations (Manhasset and Roosevelt Field Mall) and one New Jersey location (Short Hills) are central to alleged policy.
- Kozak, a former Burberry GM, testifies Burberry routinely required off-the-clock, unpaid overtime and kept only scheduled hours for payroll.
- Plaintiffs seek to certify SAs at Manhasset and Roosevelt Field Mall (NY) and Short Hills (NJ) with notices, while nationwide certification is contested.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are plaintiffs similarly situated to others at issue? | Sharma et al. show uniform off-the-clock overtime policy nationwide. | No nationwide policy; declarations are incomplete and lack personal knowledge beyond named stores. | Partially granted for NY locations (Manhasset, Roosevelt Field Mall) and Short Hills; nationwide certification denied. |
| Should the nationwide class be certified at the first stage? | Evidence shows widespread Burberry policy affecting many stores. | Evidence is insufficient; nationwide assertion is speculative. | Denied for nationwide scope; limited NY and NJ locations certified. |
| What is the proper form and scope of the notice and opt-in process? | Notice to be sent broadly and via email; include NYLL claims; six-year look-back. | Limit notice to applicable locations; restrict NYLL references and look-back periods. | Notice approved with location limitations; NYLL references allowed; look-back period set per location. |
| What discovery and record production is required at this stage? | Produce names, contact info, and time/pay records for potential class members. | Requests are premature for nationwide scope; limited production at certified sites. | Directed production of records for certified locations; denied nationwide sampling; ordered records for Manhasset, Roosevelt Field Mall, and Short Hills. |
| Is the court to rely on conflicting declarations for stage-one certification? | Declarations support a common policy; credibility issues are for later stages. | Some declarations are flawed or inconsistent and should be discounted. | Court declines extensive credibility resolution; relies on modest factual showing to grant conditional certification for limited locations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (Supreme Court 1989) (courts have discretion over notice content in collective actions)
- Myers v. Hertz Corp., 624 F.3d 537 (2d Cir. 2010) (‘similarly situated’ threshold is modest at initial certification stage)