Vaughn v. Document Group Inc.
250 F. Supp. 3d 236
S.D. Tex.2017Background
- Plaintiff Eugene Vaughn worked for The Document Group (TDG) as a litigation-support worker (scanning/printing/binding) from March–Oct. 2016 and was classified by TDG as an independent contractor.
- Vaughn alleges he (and others similarly classified) regularly worked over 40 hours/week but were paid straight time and not overtime in violation of the FLSA.
- TDG hires both W-2 employees and 1099 independent contractors for litigation-support projects and says classification depends on individual circumstances.
- Vaughn submitted his affidavit and another contractor’s affidavit (Naseem Roberson), plus spreadsheets showing multiple contractors worked >40 hours without overtime; Roberson estimates at least 15 similar workers and intends to opt in.
- The court considered a motion for conditional certification under the FLSA two-stage approach and reviewed pleadings, affidavits, and limited discovery materials.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is a reasonable basis that other aggrieved individuals exist | Vaughn and Roberson affidavits and spreadsheets show multiple contractors worked overtime without OT pay | TDG did not dispute existence of other contractors but challenged commonality/similarity | Court: Satisfied; evidence supports existence of other aggrieved individuals |
| Whether putative members are "similarly situated" for conditional certification | TDG has a common policy of misclassifying certain litigation-support workers as independent contractors to avoid paying overtime; job duties and pay practices are similar | TDG: No single policy; classification depends on individual circumstances; differences in hours/skills/pay require individualized economic-realities inquiries | Court: Satisfied under lenient notice-stage standard; evidence of common practice and similar duties/pay supports conditional certification |
| Whether the economic‑realities test bars conditional certification | Vaughn: Test pertains to merits and need not be applied at notice stage | TDG: Economic‑realities factors require individualized inquiries making collective action inappropriate | Court: Declined to apply full economic‑realities analysis at notice stage; differences are not so great as to preclude certification; merits defenses reserved for later |
| Whether other potential opt‑ins likely exist and scope of notice | Vaughn: Roberson’s affidavit and spreadsheets indicate likely opt‑ins; proposed notice attached | TDG: challenged similarities but did not rebut likelihood of opt‑ins | Court: Satisfied that others are likely to opt in; ordered amended notice and defined class starting April 20, 2014 |
Key Cases Cited
- Mooney v. Aramco Servs. Co., 54 F.3d 1207 (5th Cir.) (notice-stage evidentiary standard for collective actions)
- McKnight v. D. Houston, Inc., 756 F. Supp. 2d 794 (S.D. Tex. 2010) (two-stage approach and similarity requirement)
- Walker v. Honghua Am., LLC, 870 F. Supp. 2d 462 (S.D. Tex. 2012) (notice-stage conditional certification analysis)
- Heeg v. Adams Harris, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 2d 856 (S.D. Tex. 2012) (plaintiff must present some factual support for class-wide practice)
- Hopkins v. Cornerstone Am., 545 F.3d 338 (5th Cir. 2008) (economic‑realities test factors for employee v. independent contractor)
- Jesiek v. Fire Pros, Inc., 275 F.R.D. 242 (W.D. Mich. 2011) (similarity need not be identity for collective action)
Disposition
The court GRANTED conditional certification and certified the class: all current and former Manual Laborers and Scanner Operators classified as independent contractors who worked for TDG on or after April 20, 2014, and worked more than 40 hours in a week but were not paid overtime at 1.5x the regular rate. Vaughn was ordered to submit an amended Notice and Consent form by April 29, 2017.