Villarreal v. ST. LUKE'S EPISCOPAL HOSPITAL
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117006
S.D. Tex.2010Background
- Plaintiff Villarreal purports to represent all U.S.-based IT Services employees at St. Luke's who worked >40 hours in a week between Jan 26, 2007 and Dec 31, 2008 and were not paid overtime,
- Plaintiff seeks conditional certification as a collective action, authorization to send notice/consents, and production of potential class member data and posting of notices.
- St. Luke's IT Services is divided into five groups (TSC, IT Infra & Computer Operations, Telecommunications & Security, Application Technology Services, Information Management Applications) with most non-managerial staff allegedly classified as non-exempt or salaried but under a uniform policy.
- Plaintiff relies on declarations from himself, Tran, and Wroe describing overtime and on-call practices; defendant objects to portions of these declarations but the court ultimately overrules in part.
- Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification and overrules in part and sustains in part Defendant’s objections; court sets notice and data-provision deadlines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether putative class members exist and are similarly situated | Plaintiff shows aggrieved employees existed via 3 declarations | Insufficient showing of existence/similarity | Yes; existence shown and similarity established in part. |
| Appropriateness of Lusardi notice-stage analysis | Lusardi approach governs, notice-stage lenient standard applies | Unclear which test applies; potential overbreadth | Lusardi methodology adopted; notice-stage standard applied. |
| Scope of conditionally certified class within IT Services | All non-managerial IT Services staff in TSC should be included | Groups outside TSC not sufficiently similar | Limited to Technology Service Center non-managerial employees between Jan 26, 2007 and Dec 31, 2008. |
| Adequacy of evidence supporting overtime/compensation claims | Declarations show on-call and overtime practices | Some statements lack foundation or admissibility | Objections overruled in part, sustained in part. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mooney v. Aramco Services Co., 54 F.3d 1207 (5th Cir. 1995) (establishes Lusardi/notice-stage framework for FLSA collective actions)
- Acevedo v. Allsup's Convenience Stores, Inc., 600 F.3d 516 (5th Cir. 2010) (affirms lenient notice-stage analysis for similarly situated inquiry)
- Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 118 F.R.D. 351 (D.N.J. 1987) (two-step Lusardi approach (notice then merits) for FLSA collective actions)
- Shushan v. University of Colorado, 132 F.R.D. 263 (D. Col. 1990) (spurious class action analysis for FLSA actions)
- Baldridge v. SBC Commc'ns, Inc., 404 F.3d 930 (5th Cir. 2005) (limits scope of FLSA collective actions in certification)
- Sandoz v. Cingular Wireless LLC, 553 F.3d 913 (5th Cir. 2008) (discusses similarities required for conditional certification)