Zivali v. AT & T MOBILITY, LLC, 784 F. Supp. 2d 456

Plaintiff Zivali filed a class and collective action alleging FLSA and NYLL wage violations at AT&T Mobility.
Court previously conditionally certified the collective action; over 4,100 opt-in plaintiffs joined.
Mobility moved to decertify the collective and for summary judgment after discovery and depositions.
MyTime is Mobility’s timekeeping system; hours are punched in/out, with supervisor override for adjustments.
Mobility argues its timekeeping and policies are lawful; plaintiffs claim off-the-clock work is not captured.
Court decertified the collective, denied summary judgment, and allowed the named plaintiff to proceed to trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are opt-ins sufficiently similarly situated to continue as a collective action?	Zivali contends common policy violated FLSA across stores.	Mobility shows wide disparate facts and individualized defenses.	Not similarly situated; decertification granted.
Do Mobility’s timekeeping system and policies violate the FLSA in practice, justifying collective action liability?	MyTime and policies fail to capture off-the-clock work in many settings.	MyTime and policies lawful and consistently applied; no uniform practice across all workers.	System and policies lawful; decertification remains appropriate due to individualized evidence.
Should the case be decertified given variations in duties, offices, and defenses across stores?	Representative proof could be used; collective treatment efficient.	Evidence shows extreme variation; few common issues justify class treatment.	Decertification granted; trial limited to individual claims.

Chao v. Gotham Registry, Inc., 514 F.3d 280 (2d Cir. 2008) (second-stage similarly situated standard considers individualized defenses)
Myers v. Hertz Corp., 624 F.3d 537 (2d Cir. 2010) (second-stage inquiry requires assessing whether plaintiffs are similarly situated on a fuller record)