55 F. Supp. 3d 1163
S.D. Iowa2014Background
- Five former Wells Fargo Home Preservation Specialists (Iowa citizens) sued under the FLSA and Iowa Wage Payment Collection Law (IWPCL), alleging they were required to work 50–100 hours weekly and were pressured not to report overtime.
- Plaintiffs sought to bring claims on behalf of similarly situated employees (collective/putative class); Wells Fargo and two supervisors (Malone, Freese) are defendants.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing (1) FLSA preempts duplicative IWPCL claims (and IWPCL relief would circumvent the FLSA opt-in scheme), (2) individual supervisors are not employers under IWPCL, and (3) Plaintiffs failed to plausibly plead a similarly situated collective.
- Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaints; the Court considered Second and Third Amended Petitions adding a more limited collective (Home Preservation Specialists I & II in Des Moines area, ~150–200 persons) and specific workload allegations (benchmarks of 60 files, routinely 90–100).
- The Court granted leave to amend except as to Count 1 (IWPCL) and denied dismissal of the FLSA collective allegations on behalf of similarly situated employees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FLSA preempts duplicative IWPCL claims | IWPCL claim is a parallel remedy and not preempted; Bouaphakeo supports coexistence | FLSA preempts state claims that duplicate FLSA and would circumvent §216(b) opt‑in | Court: FLSA preempts the duplicative IWPCL claim on behalf of similarly situated employees; Count 1 dismissed |
| Whether individual supervisors (Malone, Freese) are liable as "employers" under IWPCL | Plaintiffs conceded at hearing they are not employers | Defendants: supervisors are not employers under IWPCL | Court: Plaintiffs conceded; IWPCL claims against Malone and Freese dismissed |
| Sufficiency of pleadings for a collective action ("similarly situated") | Plaintiffs: early stage; need only allege a colorable basis and may refine in discovery; Third Amended Petition identifies job titles, location, supervisor pressure, and workload | Defendants: allegations are vague, overbroad, and show individualized experiences; dismissal or narrowing required | Court: Third Amended Petition sufficiently pleads a plausible similarly situated collective limited to Home Preservation Specialists in Des Moines area; FLSA collective survives dismissal |
| Futility of proposed amendments | Plaintiffs: amendments cure earlier deficiencies | Defendants: amendments still futile (preemption, inadequacy) | Court: granted leave to amend except IWPCL Count (futile due to preemption and concession re: supervisors) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (application of Twombly plausibility and factual-pleading requirement)
- Anderson v. Sara Lee Corp., 508 F.3d 181 (FLSA can preempt dependent state-law claims because of §216(b) enforcement scheme)
- Williamson v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 208 F.3d 1144 (state-law claims that do not duplicate FLSA may survive federal preemption concerns)
- De Asencio v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 342 F.3d 301 (Third Circuit: caution in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state wage claims)
- Lindsay v. Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co., 448 F.3d 416 (supplemental jurisdiction over state wage claims where claims arise from common nucleus of operative fact)
- Pruell v. Caritas Christi, 678 F.3d 10 (First Circuit: apply Twombly/Iqbal to collective FLSA pleadings; borderline or threadbare allegations may fail)