Stephens v. Farmers Rest. Grp.
291 F. Supp. 3d 95
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiffs are eight current/former servers at five restaurants operated by Farmers Restaurant Group alleging violations of the FLSA, D.C. Minimum Wage Act, D.C. Sick Leave Act, and Maryland wage laws for unpaid minimum wage, overtime, and sick leave.
- Alleged common practices: required purchase/cleaning of uniforms and tools, unpaid pre-shift meetings, unpaid pre/post-shift "side work," tip pooling that included non-tipped staff, failure to aggregate hours across locations for overtime, denial of sick leave, and an asserted (but newly raised) unpaid "homework" training period.
- Plaintiffs submitted declarations from servers describing these practices; defendants submitted declarations denying many allegations and emphasizing variation among restaurants (different LLC owners, policies, and practices).
- Plaintiffs sought conditional (opt-in) collective certification under the FLSA and D.C. law; the court applied the two-stage FLSA conditional-certification framework and the D.C. statutory definition of "similarly situated."
- The court granted conditional certification in part and denied it in part: limited the collective to servers only; excluded certain allegations (homework; uncompensated pre-shift meetings at the Virginia location; aggregation-of-hours overtime theory); created three jurisdictional sub-classes (D.C., Maryland, Virginia); ordered production of names, mailing addresses, and email addresses within 20 days; set a 60-day opt-in period; declined to require telephone numbers or paycheck notices.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of putative class (servers, wait staff, bartenders) | Plaintiffs sought a class including servers, wait staff, bartenders claiming shared policies across roles | Defendants argued plaintiffs only offered declarations from servers and no evidence bartenders/wait staff were similarly situated | Limited class to servers only — plaintiffs failed to show bartenders/wait staff were similarly situated |
| Uniforms / tools costs (minimum wage) | Plaintiffs: required purchases/cleaning of specific clothing and tools lowered effective wages below minimum | Defendants: variations among restaurants and items; some items not "uniforms" or "tools"; individualized damages questions | Conditional certification granted for uniforms/tools as to servers; variations are insufficient at this stage and damage differences are for later proceedings |
| Uncompensated pre-shift meetings (min. wage & overtime) | Plaintiffs: pre-shift meetings (15–20 min) unpaid before every shift, causing unpaid wages and overtime | Defendants: meetings vary by location; at VA location employees could clock in by arriving earlier; disputes about payment | Certified for D.C. and Maryland locations; not certified for Founding Farmers Tysons (Virginia) where facts differ |
| Tip-pool policy | Plaintiffs: servers required to contribute to tip pool that included non-tipped staff, invalidating tip-credit deduction | Defendants: variations in pool composition; bartenders may not have contributed | Certified as to servers (declarations show servers contributed and pool included bussers/runners/stockers); bartenders excluded due to lack of evidence they contributed |
| "Homework" (training) unpaid work | Plaintiffs raised unpaid daily homework during first two weeks in declarations | Defendants: homework allegation not in amended complaint; unfair surprise | Not certified — court refused to permit new substantive theory not pleaded in complaint |
| Aggregation of hours across restaurants (overtime) | Plaintiffs: employer counted hours by location to avoid overtime pay | Defendants: deny and present evidence of payment; only one declarant asserts this | Not certified — single conclusory affidavit insufficient to show similarly situated employees |
| Sick leave (D.C. Sick Leave Act) | Plaintiffs: denial of sick leave and in some cases ordered to work when requesting leave | Defendants: claim paid sick leave and payout; eligibility varies due to 90-day rule | Certified as to D.C. sick-leave claims for servers; factual disputes and eligibility can be evaluated later |
| Notice and opt-in procedure | Plaintiffs: request names, addresses, emails, phone numbers; 90 then 60-day opt-in period; paycheck notices | Defendants: resist production of emails/phones; propose 30-day opt-in; oppose paycheck notice | Ordered production of names, mailing addresses, email addresses within 20 days; phone numbers and paycheck notices not required; 60-day opt-in period; parties to submit revised notice form |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1989) (courts supervise notice procedure and ensure notice is timely, accurate, informative)
- Myers v. Hertz Corp., 624 F.3d 537 (2d Cir. 2010) (articulates the two-stage collective-action inquiry and the modest burden for conditional certification)
- Grayson v. K Mart Corp., 79 F.3d 1086 (11th Cir. 1996) (named plaintiffs must show positions are similar, not identical)
- Dinkel v. MedStar Health, Inc., 880 F. Supp. 2d 49 (D.D.C. 2012) (use of subclasses and factors for conditional certification)
- Blount v. U.S. Sec. Assocs., 945 F. Supp. 2d 88 (D.D.C. 2013) (plaintiffs may meet conditional-certification burden via affidavits despite factual variations)