Young v. Act Fast Delivery of West Virginia, Inc.
5:16-cv-09788
S.D.W. VaAug 10, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Eric Young worked as a delivery driver/dispatcher for Act Fast and related entities from ~July 2012–July 2015 and signed an "Independent Contractor Agreement."
- Young alleges drivers were misclassified as independent contractors, were paid per route/delivery, required to purchase/wear company uniforms, and had schedules, routes, and order of deliveries dictated by defendants.
- Young claims drivers routinely worked >40 hours/week without overtime and that the classification allowed defendants to avoid paying minimum and overtime wages under the FLSA.
- Plaintiff filed for conditional certification of an FLSA collective (all drivers classified as independent contractors who worked in WV in the three years before suit) and attached his and five other declarations describing similar working conditions.
- Defendants (Act Fast and Omnicare groups) opposed conditional certification, arguing the evidence is conclusory, contract terms vary, and prior caselaw rejects joint-employer status for Omnicare.
- The court granted conditional certification, finding the plaintiffs met the lenient early-stage evidentiary burden and approved notice procedures (names, addresses, phones, e‑mails; denied production of Social Security numbers and denied reminder notice).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conditional certification of an FLSA collective is appropriate | Young: Declarations from him and five others show common control and policies (schedules, routes, uniforms, required calls) making drivers similarly situated | Defendants: Allegations are conclusory; independent contractor agreements differ and require individual analysis; no common unlawful policy | Granted — court applied lenient notice-stage standard and found declarations sufficient to show similarly situated drivers |
| Whether the court must analyze each independent-contractor agreement at certification | Young: Early stage does not require resolving individualized contract issues; declarations suffice | Act Fast: Each agreement differs so conditional certification inappropriate without individualized inquiry | Denied — court held it need not resolve factual disputes or examine every agreement at conditional stage |
| Relevance of prior decision on joint-employer status (Dalton) | Young: Joint-employer question is a merits issue not required for conditional certification | Omnicare: Prior Dalton decision shows Omnicare is not a joint employer; thus no common defendant control | Court: Joint-employer issue is premature for conditional certification and not dispositive at notice stage |
| Scope and form of court-facilitated notice and production of contact info | Young: Proposed notice, 60-day opt-in, and request for names, addresses, phones, e-mails, dates of birth, and SSNs | Defendants: Oppose production of sensitive data (SSNs, DOB); object to reminder notice | Court: Approved notice and 60-day opt-in; ordered production of names, DOB, phones, addresses, e-mails in electronic form; denied SSN production and denied reminder notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Purdham v. Fairfax Cty. Pub. Sch., 629 F. Supp. 2d 544 (E.D. Va. 2009) (describing conditional-certification/notice stage procedure under the FLSA)
- Syrja v. Westat, Inc., 756 F. Supp. 2d 682 (D. Md. 2010) (explaining court’s role in determining whether plaintiffs are "similarly situated" for notice)
- Camper v. Home Quality Mgmt., Inc., 200 F.R.D. 516 (D. Md. 2000) (discussing conditional certification inquiry)
- Byard v. Verizon W. Va., Inc., 287 F.R.D. 365 (N.D.W. Va. 2012) (noting courts should not resolve factual disputes or credibility at the notice stage)
- Anderson v. Cagle's, Inc., 488 F.3d 945 (11th Cir. 2007) (describing the lenient standard for conditional certification)
- Dalton v. Omnicare, Inc., 138 F. Supp. 3d 709 (N.D.W. Va. 2015) (prior decision addressing joint-employer issue invoked by defendants)