Waggoner v. U.S. Bancorp
110 F. Supp. 3d 759
| N.D. Ohio | 2015Background
- Plaintiffs Kelly Waggoner and Darbey Schultz are former U.S. Bank in-store co-managers (supermarket branches) who allege company-wide misclassification as exempt and failure to pay overtime in violation of the FLSA.
- Plaintiffs filed for conditional certification of a nationwide FLSA collective (excluding California) covering co-managers who worked on or after July 23, 2011; three opt-in consent forms already were filed.
- Plaintiffs submitted five declarations (two named plaintiffs, three potential opt-ins) and two co-manager job postings from different states to show similar duties and a consistent compensation system.
- U.S. Bank opposed certification, relying on deposition testimony and declarations from current co-managers asserting managerial/exempt duties and arguing variations across locations; it also cited a prior California Rule 23 decision involving branch managers.
- The court applied the FLSA two-step framework, declined to apply a heightened (“modest plus”) standard because little discovery on conditional certification had occurred, and found plaintiffs met the modest showing required at step one.
- The court conditionally certified the nationwide (except California) collective, directed the parties to confer and submit a proposed notice for court approval, and set timelines for notice distribution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs made the modest factual showing to conditionally certify an FLSA collective | Waggoner/Schultz: declarations + job postings show similar duties, overtime work, and uniform pay practice, supporting notice to similarly situated co-managers | U.S. Bank: depositions and current-employee declarations show managerial/exempt duties and variation across branches, defeating collective treatment | Granted conditional certification; plaintiffs satisfied the lenient step-one showing |
| Whether the court should apply a heightened (“modest plus”) standard given some discovery | Plaintiffs: little to no discovery targeted at conditional-certification; modest standard appropriate | U.S. Bank: cited cases applying heightened standard where record was more developed | Court refused to apply modest-plus because the record was undeveloped and plaintiffs had not had opportunity for discovery |
| Whether the court should decide exemption/merits at the notice stage | Plaintiffs: merits premature; exemption requires developed record | U.S. Bank: evidence suggests executive exemption applies because postings and testimony show managerial duties | Court held merits/exemption are premature and improper at step-one; such issues reserved for later stages |
| Scope of the collective (nationwide vs. limited states) | Plaintiffs: evidence from multiple states plus identical job postings supports nationwide notice (excluding CA) | U.S. Bank: declarations from a few states insufficient to support nationwide collective; risk of disparate conditions | Court approved nationwide conditional certification (excluding California), noting it was a close call but sufficient under the minimal early-stage standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Comer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 454 F.3d 544 (6th Cir.) (two-step FLSA collective-certification framework; modest showing at notice stage)
- O’Brien v. Ed Donnelly Enter., Inc., 575 F.3d 567 (6th Cir.) (plaintiffs similarly situated where claims unified by common theories even if proofs vary)
- Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989) (district court discretion to facilitate notice to potential collective members)
- Morisky v. Public Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 111 F. Supp. 2d 493 (D.N.J.) (notice-stage standard often results in conditional certification)
- White v. MPW Indus. Servs., Inc., 236 F.R.D. 363 (E.D. Tenn.) (factors for decertification stage and discussion of individualized defenses)