Jodeci Vanorden, et al. v. ECP Optometry Services LLC, et al.
2:24-cv-01060
D. Ariz.Dec 23, 2024Background
- Plaintiffs, former non-exempt employees of ECP Optometry Services and Eyecare Partners, allege they routinely performed uncompensated off-the-clock overtime work from early 2023 to April 2024.
- Plaintiffs claim Defendants maintained a company-wide practice requiring or encouraging off-the-clock overtime work and failing to pay required overtime wages under the FLSA.
- The case was brought as a putative FLSA collective action on behalf of all similar employees denied overtime in the last three years.
- Plaintiffs moved for preliminary (conditional) certification to send notice of the action to similarly situated employees, seeking equitable tolling due to delay in litigation.
- Defendants opposed, disputing the existence of a company-wide policy, contesting the similarity between plaintiffs and putative collective members, challenging personal jurisdiction over non-Arizona opt-ins, and objecting to the proposed notice procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Certification Standard | Ninth Circuit’s lenient two-step test (Campbell) applies | Urges adoption of Fifth/Sixth Circuits' stricter standards | Ninth Circuit standard (Campbell) applies |
| Similarly Situated Requirement | Collective subjected to same systemic practice/policy | No objective evidence; plaintiffs not shown to be similar to other job roles; declarations are self-serving | Plaintiffs plausibly show similarity |
| Personal Jurisdiction | Court can send nationwide notice; address jurisdiction if out-of-state opt-ins respond | Lacks jurisdiction over out-of-state opt-ins under Bristol-Myers; notice must be limited to Arizona employees | Not ripe; can revisit if out-of-state opt-ins join |
| Equitable Tolling | Delay due to extensions and court ruling justifies tolling | No basis; delay is part of normal litigation | Granted 90-day equitable tolling |
| Notice and Procedures | Proposed notice/consent forms are fair; Plaintiffs’ counsel should oversee | Oppose notice format; request third-party administrator, object to full contact info, including SSNs | Plaintiffs' plan approved, minus SSNs |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. City of Los Angeles, 903 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2018) (defines standard for FLSA collective actions, rejecting Rule 23 analogy and ad hoc tests)
- Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1989) (endorses broad notice to potential FLSA plaintiffs and the importance of timely notice)
- Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66 (U.S. 2013) (conditional certification does not join additional parties; it's for notice purposes only)
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 582 U.S. 255 (U.S. 2017) (limits on specific jurisdiction in mass actions, leaving open its reach over FLSA collectives in federal courts)
- Senne v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp., 934 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2019) (reiterates FLSA's remedial purpose and liberal construction of the similarly situated standard)