Victor Zavala v. Wal Mart Stores Inc
691 F.3d 527
| 3rd Cir. | 2012Background
- Wal‑Mart cleaning crew plaintiffs seek unpaid overtime, FLSA collective action certification, RICO damages, and false imprisonment relief.
- Plaintiffs allege Wal‑Mart exercised control over cleaners and hired/fired crews, supporting FLSA employer status.
- RICO predicates alleged include transporting, harboring, encouraging, and involuntary servitude, plus money laundering conspiracy; false imprisonment is alleged from locked stores.
- District Court repeatedly denied/decertified the FLSA collective, dismissed RICO predicates, and granted summary judgment on false imprisonment; this appeal challenges those rulings.
- Record shows cleaners worked for multiple contractors across many stores with varied hours; Wal‑Mart reportedly provided a maintenance manual and exercised supervision over work, but stores disputed control.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether final certification required to show similarity among plaintiffs | Zavala argues plaintiffs are similarly situated under FLSA | Wal‑Mart contends significant differences preclude certification | Yes; plaintiffs must show by preponderance they are similarly situated; not met; district court affirmed decertification |
| Whether RICO claims were adequately pled | Zavala alleges pattern of predicate acts and conspiracy | Wal‑Mart argues lack of two predicate acts and no pattern | No; insufficient pattern and predicate acts; RICO claims dismissed |
| Whether false imprisonment claims survive summary judgment | Zavala alleges locked stores and improper confinement | Wal‑Mart shows exits were accessible and not obstructed; consent/awareness | Yes; summary judgment affirmed for Wal‑Mart; exits available and not obstructed |
Key Cases Cited
- Thiessen v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp., 267 F.3d 1095 (10th Cir. 2001) (adopted ad hoc approach to determining similarly situated employees; guidance on certification)
- Symczyk v. Genesis Healthcare Corp., 656 F.3d 189 (3d Cir. 2011) (discussed initial notice stage and raised questions on burden of proof at second stage)
- Morgan v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., 551 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard for certification decisions; summary of similar situated analysis)
- Ruehl v. Viacom, Inc., 500 F.3d 375 (3d Cir. 2007) (factors for ad hoc similarly situated analysis in FLSA context)