TALARICO v. PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS, LLC
5:17-cv-02165
| E.D. Pa. | May 12, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Ralph Talarico and ~4,900 opt‑in Direct Care Workers (DCWs) sued Public Partnerships, LLC (PPL) alleging PPL was their joint employer and failed to pay overtime for hours over 40 (claims under FLSA, Pennsylvania MWA, and WPCL).
- PPL serves as Pennsylvania’s fiscal/administrative agent for the Participant Directed Services Medicaid program: it processes enrollment, requires standardized DCW agreements, conducts background checks, sets/limits pay rates, operates timesheets/timekeeping, issues payroll checks and W‑2s, withholds taxes, and receives state reimbursement.
- PPL historically did not pay overtime before 1/1/2016; after that date PPL paid overtime only in limited circumstances (e.g., non‑live‑in DCWs working >40 hours for same participant).
- On summary judgment the district court previously dismissed the case, but the Third Circuit reversed and remanded, finding disputed facts on joint‑employer status.
- On remand the district court evaluated Rule 23 certification and final §216(b) collective certification, holding that common evidence of PPL’s uniform policies satisfies the Enterprise joint‑employer factors and that class/collective treatment is appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Joint‑employer question / predominance | PPL’s uniform policies, payroll, timesheets, agreements, and centralized control make joint‑employer status a common question provable with class‑wide evidence | Joint‑employer status depends on individualized facts (how many participants a DCW served, live‑in status, differing duties), so individual issues predominate | Court: Enterprise factors are decided with common evidence (PPL’s policies/records); predominance satisfied |
| Typicality of named plaintiff | Talarico shares the same legal theory and incentive as class members to show PPL is joint employer | Talarico worked for multiple participants (only ~14% did), so his situation is atypical | Court: Typicality met—variations do not create conflicting legal theories |
| Superiority / manageability | Class action promotes efficiency; PPL’s payroll/timesheets allow class‑wide liability and damages calculation | Individualized defenses (live‑in exemption, pre‑2016 pay, differing hours/PEs) make class trial unmanageable | Court: Superiority met; manageability not defeated—state law removes live‑in exemption issue and class excludes DCWs already paid all overtime |
| Final FLSA collective certification (similarly situated) | Opt‑ins share common employer practice, job title, payroll system, and seek the same relief | DCWs worked in different homes, for different participants, had different schedules/duties, so are not similarly situated | Court: Final certification granted—opt‑ins are similarly situated based on common employer practice and standardized records |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305 (3d Cir.) (Rule 23 requires rigorous analysis of prerequisites)
- Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (U.S.) (common‑question inquiry requires class‑wide answers capable of proof through common evidence)
- Zavala v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 691 F.3d 527 (3d Cir.) (two‑step FLSA collective‑action standard and factors for similarly situated analysis)
- Hoffmann‑La Roche, Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (U.S.) (purposes of §216(b) collective actions: cost‑saving and single proceeding)
- Gonzalez v. Corning, 885 F.3d 186 (3d Cir.) (predominance requires essential elements be provable with common evidence)
- Newton v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 259 F.3d 154 (3d Cir.) (typicality does not require identical factual patterns when legal theory is common)
- Bayada Nurses, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 8 A.3d 866 (Pa. Commw. Ct.) (under Pennsylvania law joint employers cannot invoke the household/live‑in exemption to avoid overtime)