Sullivan v. Dent Wizard International, LLC
4:25-cv-00097
| E.D. Mo. | May 23, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs are or were Automotive Repair Services (ARS) technicians for Dent Wizard, employed outside of retail locations, alleging they were not properly paid overtime in violation of the FLSA.
- Sullivan (plaintiff) asserts Dent Wizard had a uniform practice of requiring technicians to record only 40 work hours per week, regardless of actual hours worked, and failing to pay overtime, both during hourly and percentage-based compensation periods.
- Plaintiffs provided sworn declarations from multiple states describing this alleged uniform policy; about 15 individuals had already joined, and a similar Florida action was consolidated.
- Defendant (Dent Wizard) argued company policy is to pay all overtime and that written policies require proper time recording and payments; managers submitted declarations in support.
- Defendant also objected to including California employees who signed arbitration agreements waiving class/collective rights after January 2024.
- Plaintiffs sought conditional certification for a nationwide FLSA collective, notification to potential members via multiple methods, and court approval of the opt-in notice, while accepting some edits and exclusions proposed by Dent Wizard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard for conditional certification | Eighth Circuit follows two-step, lenient approach at notice stage | Urges court to use stricter Fifth Circuit (Swales) or Sixth Circuit standards | Applies two-step lenient approach; plaintiffs meet burden |
| Existence of common policy/plan violating FLSA | Dent Wizard had de facto, nationwide policy avoiding overtime via timesheet manipulation | No, written policy required overtime pay; practice followed company policy | Sufficient evidence of de facto practice supports certification at notice stage |
| Exclusion of CA employees with arbitration agreements | Agrees to exclude such employees from notice and collective | Argues these employees must be excluded due to waiver | Excludes CA technicians who signed relevant arbitration agreements |
| Form, content, and process of notice to collective members | Seeks approval with moderate edits and multi-channel dissemination | Requests language edits, inclusion of risk/costs, limits on text/reminders/posts | Approves notice with modifications, allows mail/email/text, limits text/reminder |
Key Cases Cited
- Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 577 U.S. 442 (S. Ct. 2016) (conditional certification under FLSA simply facilitates court notice to possible plaintiffs)
- Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (S. Ct. 1989) (district courts have discretion to authorize early notice in collective actions)
- Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 954 F.3d 502 (2d Cir. 2020) (describes "modest factual showing" standard for conditional FLSA certification)
- Halle v. W. Penn Allegheny Health Sys. Inc., 842 F.3d 215 (3d Cir. 2016) (endorses modest showing for FLSA notice)