Walden v. State of Nevada, 3:14-cv-00320

Background

Seven named plaintiffs sued Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) alleging FLSA and state-law unpaid-wage claims on behalf of all similarly situated correctional officers for off-the-clock, unpaid tasks (roll-call, equipment handling, shift communications).
Plaintiffs moved for court-authorized notice under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) to allow opt-in collective action and requested tolling of the statute of limitations during the motion pendency.
The court applies the two-step § 216(b) collective-action framework used in the Ninth Circuit: a lenient notice-stage inquiry (conditional certification) followed by a stricter post-discovery review.
NDOC opposed aspects of the proposed notice: the class definition language, certain notice timing and content, disciplinary disclosure, settlement/cap language, and language in the consent form.
The court found plaintiffs had alleged a common policy/practice affecting non-exempt hourly correctional staff, including sergeants and lieutenants, and granted circulation of notice with specific amendments to the notice and consent form.
The court ordered NDOC to provide contact information, set mailing deadlines and procedures for a claims administrator, required production of opt-in consents, and tolled the statute of limitations for the period the motion was pending (but declined to toll the additional notice period requested).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether conditional certification/notice under § 216(b) is warranted	Plaintiffs alleged a common, unlawful NDOC policy requiring unpaid off-the-clock work applied to all correctional officers	NDOC disputed aspects but did not show lack of a common policy sufficient to defeat notice	Court granted conditional certification for notice; plaintiffs sufficiently alleged a common plan/policy
Appropriate content and deadlines in the court-approved notice	Plaintiffs proposed a neutral notice and consent form previously used in this court	NDOC objected to class wording, lack of a specific return date, omission of potential disciplinary consequences, settlement-cap language, and phrasing in consent	Court required amendments: set June 30, 2015 deadline; include disciplinary info; add settlement-cap approval language; fix consent phrasing; overruled other objections
Whether sergeants/lieutenants should be included in the opt-in class	Plaintiffs sought all non-exempt hourly correctional staff	NDOC urged class language conform to a state statute and exclude sergeants/lieutenants	Court held sergeants/lieutenants are non-exempt hourly employees and must be included
Tolling the FLSA statute of limitations during proceedings	Plaintiffs asked to toll limitations while motion was pending and during the subsequent notice period	NDOC opposed broad tolling	Court tolled the statute for the period the motion was pending (equitable tolling) but denied tolling for the entire notice period requested

Key Cases Cited

Sarviss v. Gen. Dynamics Info. Tech., Inc., 663 F. Supp. 2d 883 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (discussing two-step § 216(b) collective-action framework)
Kinney Shoe Corp. v. Vorhes, 564 F.2d 859 (9th Cir. 1977) (Rule 23 certification standards do not apply to FLSA § 216(b) actions)
Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989) (trial court has broad discretion over content and supervision of notice in FLSA collective actions)
Partlow v. Jewish Orphans’ Home of So. Cal., 645 F.2d 757 (9th Cir. 1981) (equitable tolling of FLSA limitations period may be appropriate in certain circumstances)
Mooney v. Aramco Servs. Co., 54 F.3d 1207 (5th Cir. 1995) (opt-in plaintiff need only make substantial allegations of a single decision, policy, or plan to satisfy notice-stage similarity)