Tegtmeier v. PJ Iowa, L.C., 208 F. Supp. 3d 1012

Background

Plaintiff Brandon Tegtmeier worked as a Papa John’s delivery driver for defendant PJ Iowa from Jan–Sept 2014 and sued under the FLSA alleging minimum-wage violations; he seeks conditional collective-action certification under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
Tegtmeier pleaded three FLSA wage claims; the certification motion is limited to Count II (vehicle-expense reimbursement) and the driving-record portion of Count III; he also requests equitable tolling for opt-ins.
PJ Iowa pays delivery drivers below federal minimum hourly rates (with tip credits and a minimum-wage adjustment when tips are insufficient) and reimburses vehicle expenses by paying 5% of net delivery sales per shift; it does not track miles or actual vehicle expenses.
Plaintiff’s expert compared PJ Iowa’s reimbursement to the IRS standard mileage rate and industry per-mile estimates, concluding reimbursement is inadequate and results in net pay below the minimum wage after tip credit.
PJ Iowa disputed aspects of Tegtmeier’s factual statements about his own reimbursements and argued variability of reimbursements and individual expenses make collective treatment inappropriate; it also argued pre-employment driving‑record costs are not compensable wages.
The court granted conditional certification for delivery drivers employed between Oct. 13, 2012 and the present, approved notice (with edits), required PJ Iowa to produce contact/employment data, set a 60-day opt-in period, and tolled the limitations period from March 23, 2016 until notice begins.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the vehicle‑expense reimbursement claim warrants conditional collective certification	PJ claims a uniform 5%‑of‑net‑sales reimbursement policy under‑reimburses drivers, causing wages (after tip credit) to fall below federal minimum; seeks notice to similarly situated drivers	PJ Iowa contends variability in reimbursements and individual vehicle expenses preclude collective treatment and questions Plaintiff’s own statements about his reimbursements	Granted: plaintiff met the low “some factual basis” threshold; common policy exists and merits notice at this stage
Whether the driving‑record cost claim warrants conditional collective certification	Tegtmeier contends requiring prospective drivers to procure motor‑vehicle records at their own expense imposes employer‑directed costs that reduce wages below minimum and applies to all drivers	PJ Iowa argues pre‑employment costs (incurred before employment or an offer) need not be included in minimum‑wage calculations and the claim may be meritless	Granted: court declined to dismiss as meritless at certification stage and found conditional certification appropriate
Whether the proposed notice and contact information are appropriate	Plaintiff proposed a notice and consent form, contact info for plaintiffs’ counsel, and requested certain employer records; sought 90‑day opt‑in	PJ Iowa objected to terminology ("Class"), inaccuracies, counsel contact info, production of birthdates, and proposed 90‑day period	Court approved notice with scrivener corrections, allowed counsel contact info, rejected birthdate production, and set 60‑day opt‑in
Whether equitable tolling for opt‑ins is appropriate	Plaintiff requested tolling from March 23, 2016 until notice starts to preserve potential claims	Defendant opposed equitable tolling	Court tolled statute of limitations from March 23, 2016 until notice period begins

Key Cases Cited

Putman v. Galaxy 1 Mktg., Inc., 276 F.R.D. 264 (S.D. Iowa 2011) (describing two‑step FLSA collective‑certification framework)
Robinson v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 254 F.R.D. 97 (S.D. Iowa 2008) (conditional certification standard and notice‑stage analysis)
Bouaphakeo v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 564 F. Supp. 2d 870 (N.D. Iowa 2008) (plaintiffs need not prove merits at certification stage)
Bellaspica v. PJPA, LLC, 8 F. Supp. 3d 257 (E.D. Pa. 2014) (collective certification where per‑delivery reimbursement alleged to under‑reimburse drivers)
Hoffmann‑La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989) (district court authority to facilitate notice in collective actions)
Castellanos‑Contreras v. Decatur Hotels, LLC, 622 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2010) (discussing limits on reimbursing employer‑directed expenses)
Arriaga v. Fla. Pac. Farms, L.L.C., 305 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2002) (pre‑employment expenses that primarily benefit employer must be reimbursed to meet minimum wage)
Myers v. Hertz Corp., 624 F.3d 537 (2d Cir. 2010) (explaining certification under § 216(b) is a court‑managed notice device)