In brief
- Michigan federal court denied court-facilitated notice in an FLSA overtime lawsuit against Autoneum North America.
- Plaintiffs failed to show a “strong likelihood” that potential opt-in employees were similarly situated.
- Different plant policies, collective bargaining agreements, and overtime calculations created individualized issues.
- The court found deficiencies in the plaintiffs’ declarations and evidence supporting a companywide timekeeping policy.
Plaintiffs suing their employer for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) failed to meet the “strong likelihood” standard necessary for court-facilitated notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs, the Eastern District of the U.S. District Court of Michigan has ruled.
“The Named Plaintiffs did not show by a strong likelihood that potential opt-in plaintiffs are similarly situated,” U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. White wrote. “The dissimilarities across plants, and the effect those dissimilarities have on the present litigation, do not support court-facilitated notice.”
The 14-page order is Glidwell, Jr. v. Autoneum North America, Inc.; MiLW No. 02-111180.
Daniel I. Bryant of Bryant Legal in Columbus, Ohio, who represented the plaintiffs, did not respond to a request for comment.
Neither did Toledo, Ohio attorney Elizabeth L. Bolduc of Eastman & Smith, who represented the employer.
Roger Glidwell, Jr. and Amy Kelly sued Autoneum North America, which produces automobile materials, components and systems, and operates facilities throughout the United States.
Glidwell worked as a maintenance technician at a facility in Bloomsburg, Penn. and Kelly worked as a mold operator in Norwalk, Ohio.
They alleged that Autoneum failed to pay overtime wages in violation of the FLSA. Hourly, non-exempt employees are required to clock in and out each day using Autoneum’s timekeeping system, but mandatory work occurred prior to the scheduled “start” of their shifts (such as donning personal protective equipment and participating in pre-shift meetings) as well as after their shift ended but before they clocked out, the plaintiffs claimed.
The plaintiffs asked the court for authorization to send a proposed notice and consent to join form to all potential opt-in plaintiffs, defined as “[a]ll current and former hourly, non-exempt production/manufacturing employees of [Autoneum] who worked at any of Defendant’s manufacturing/production facilities and were paid for at least 40 hours in any workweek beginning Oct. 24, 2021 and continuing through the final disposition of this case.”
Autoneum objected.
“Strong likelihood” not demonstrated
For a district court to facilitate notice of an FLSA suit to other employees, the plaintiffs must show a “strong likelihood” that those employees are similarly situated to the plaintiffs themselves, the court explained, relying on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Clark v. A&L Homecare and Training Ctr., LLC.
While the plaintiffs argued that their evidence established a strong likelihood, the court disagreed.
“[T]he Court is not convinced that the potential opt-in plaintiffs are similarly situated for purposes of facilitating notice,” the court wrote. “The Named Plaintiffs’ evidence, when compared to the identified differences in each plant’s policies, is insufficient to suggest that Autoneum had a companywide policy, implemented through the Time Rounding Policy, to underpay employees. The Court’s doubt is further compounded by certain shortcomings in the Named Plaintiffs’ evidence.”
For purposes of joining an FLSA suit, whether other employees are similarly situated typically depends on whether they performed the same tasks and were subject to the same policies – as to both timekeeping and compensation – as the original plaintiffs, the court said, with factors such as the factual and employment settings of the individual plaintiffs, the different defenses to which the plaintiffs may be subject and the degree of fairness and procedural impact of facilitating notice.
The plaintiffs relied primarily on declarations from Kelly and five opt-in plaintiffs, who worked at five different plants. Each stated that they had to clock in and out to keep track of their work hours, that the system was a “companywide policy or practice,” and that they performed work while clocked in but prior to the scheduled start and stop time of their shifts.
They also stated that even though Autoneum recorded the exact time they clocked in and out each day, Autoneum did not pay for all of the time they were clocked in for, as the work performed prior to the start and stop time included meetings to receive work assignments, relieving the previous worker operating the machine or waiting to be relieved by the next worker.
“To begin, it is not clear that employees were subject to a companywide policy that intentionally miscalculated Plaintiffs’ working hours,” the court said. “Each plant listed in the complaint used a different handbook or set calculation of work hours based on a collective bargaining agreement (CBA).”
The plaintiffs “offered little evidence to rebut that each facility had its own system for calculating time worked,” the court added, finding that “there is not a strong likelihood that the underpayment was attributable to a companywide policy such that opt-in plaintiffs are similarly situated.”
Further, the plaintiffs are subject to individualized defenses based on where they worked. The policies employed at the different facilities varied, the court noted, using examples of the amount of overtime the plaintiffs are entitled to, which is calculated in ways that would render recovery different for the plaintiffs involved, as well as the CBAs that set forth unique grievance procedures for plaintiffs that must be followed.
“Ultimately, the availability of individualized defenses across plants cuts against court-facilitated notice,” the court said.
The court also considered the fairness of authorizing notice. Thousands of employees across six plants in four different states would receive notice, which would amount to solicitation of those employees.
“Here, considering the impact notice might have on the ranks of this collective action, the Court finds that Named Plaintiffs need further evidence to show that potential opt-ins are similarly situated,” the court wrote. “To grant the motion, without more, would circumvent the intended purpose of the rule set forth in Clark.”
The court also pointed out “some notable deficiencies” in the plaintiffs’ evidence that weighed against a finding of court-facilitated notice, including that two of the declarants ended their employment over three years before the filing of the complaint (meaning their claims fell outside of the notice period) while another declarant was also an opt-in plaintiff in a different FLSA action.
That left the plaintiffs with just four declarations across the six identified plants in support of their position.
While there is no minimum number of declarations needed to satisfy the strong likelihood standard, “the declarations on their own are insufficient to meet the standard outlined by Clark,” the court held. “So the fact that only four are proper for consideration further weakens Plaintiffs’ position. Without more, the Court is not persuaded that this practice was a pervasive companywide policy such that there is a strong likelihood similarly situated opt-in plaintiffs require notice.”
The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion.
