Anthony v. Rise Services Incorporated

Filing 37

ORDER - 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional FLSA Certification and to Authorize Notice to Similarly Situated Persons under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and for Expedited Discovery (Doc. 18 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as stated in t his Order. 2. The Court ORDERS conditional certification of the class of Rise's Direct Support Professionals employed in Arizona since February 18, 2019 who claim that they are owed unpaid minimum wage and overtime pay under the FLSA because Rise allegedly required Direct Support Professionals to routinely perform certain activities off-the -clock without pay, including the completion of mandatory training. 3. The Court APPROVES the proposed Notice attached to Plaintiff's Reply ( Doc. 29 -1) once the phrase at the top which states "This is not a solicitation from a lawyer" is deleted. The Court further authorizes the Consent to Opt-In Form (Doc. 18 -2) attached as Exhibit 2 to Plaintiff's Motion 4. The Cour t AUTHORIZES Plaintiff to mail and email the proposed Notice to Rise's DSPs statewide. It also authorizes Plaintiff to send a text message regarding the Notice to the individual prospective Plaintiffs. 5. The Court further ORDERS that Defendan ts shall provide to Plaintiff, within 14 days of the date this Order is electronically filed, the names, mailing addresses, email addresses, and cell phone numbers of all current and former DSPs who worked for Rise in Arizona from February 18, 2019 through the date the information is provided. (See document for further details). Signed by Chief Judge G Murray Snow on 8/2/2022. (LAD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Deion Anthony,

No. CV-22-00268-PHX-GMS

Plaintiff,

10

ORDER

11

v.

12

Rise Services Incorporated, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15
16

Pending before the Court is Deion Anthony’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Conditional

17

FLSA Certification and to Authorize Notice to Similarly Situated Persons under 29 U.S.C.

18

§ 216(b) and for Expedited Discovery (Doc. 18). The Motion is granted in part and denied

19

in part.
BACKGROUND

20
21

Defendant Rise Services Inc., (“Rise”, whether it be the Utah corporation by that

22

name, the Arizona corporation by that name, or both), provides residential and other

23

services to people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in its facilities

24

throughout Arizona.

25

Kingman, Lake Havasu City, Mesa, Queen Creek, Sierra Vista, Surprise, Tucson, and

26

Yuma.

Its Arizona locations in addition to Phoenix include: Chinle,

27

Plaintiff was hired by Rise as a non-exempt Direct Support Professional (“DSP”)

28

whose hourly rate throughout the relevant period ranged from $12.25 per hour to $13.50

1

per hour. In addition, Plaintiff alleges he was compensated at a hazard rate of pay of $20.25

2

per hour when he provided services to a client who had tested positive for COVID-19. He

3

also alleges he was paid time and a half his hourly rate for holidays and was also entitled

4

to non-discretionary bonuses. Plaintiff finally alleges that he and other DSPs were required

5

to receive mandatory training for which they were to be paid by Rise. In his complaint, he

6

alleges that Rise routinely and consistently failed to pay the DSPs all the compensation

7

they were due. He alleges that he and other DSPs could not complete their mandatory

8

training during their regularly scheduled shifts and were required to complete it off the

9

clock for which they were never paid. He also alleges that Rise failed to pay hazard pay

10

due to its employees and failed to pay required employee overtime when DSPs worked

11

more than forty hours in a week. He further alleges that when Rise did pay overtime, it

12

often paid it at standard rates, even when an employee was entitled to have his overtime

13

calculated at the holiday or hazard rate of pay. He and opt-in Plaintiff Fischkelta allege

14

based on conversations that they had with other Rise employees that other Rise employees

15

were subject to the same company compensation policies. Opt-in Plaintiff Sanchez also

16

asserts that she was subjected to the same compensation practices.

17
18

DISCUSSION
I.

Conditional Certification.

19

An employee may bring an FLSA collective action on behalf of himself and other

20

“similarly situated” employees. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Neither the statute nor the Ninth

21

Circuit has defined the phrase “similarly situated.” Id. District courts within the Ninth

22

Circuit “generally follow the two-tiered or two-step approach for making a collective

23

action determination.” Colson v. Avnet, Inc., 687 F. Supp. 2d 914, 925 (D. Ariz. 2010).

24

Under this approach, “a court typically makes an initial ‘notice stage’ determination of

25

whether plaintiffs are ‘similarly situated.’” Thiessen v. Gen. Elec. Cap. Corp., 267 F.3d

26

1095, 1102 (10th Cir. 2001). At this step, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that he

27

is similarly situated to the rest of the proposed class, but the standard “require[s] nothing

28

more than substantial allegations that the putative class members were together the victims

-2-

1

of a single decision, policy, or plan.” Id. (quoting Vaszlavik v. Storage Tech. Corp., 175

2

F.R.D. 672, 678 (D. Colo. 1997)). The requirement is a “lenient” burden, which may be

3

satisfied through affidavits and the complaint alone. Goudie v. Cable Commc’ns, Inc., No.

4

08-CV-507-AC, 2008 WL 4628394, at *3-4 (D. Or. Oct. 14, 2008).

5

“To proceed to the notification stage of the litigation, Plaintiffs’ allegations need . .

6

. . only show that there is some ‘factual nexus which binds the named plaintiffs and the

7

potential class members together as victims of a particular alleged policy or practice.’”

8

Stickle v. SCI W. Mkt. Support Ctr., L.P., No. 08-083-PHX-MHM, 2009 WL 3241790, at

9

*3 (D. Ariz. Sept. 30, 2009) (quoting Bonila v. Las Vegas Cigar Co., 61 F. Supp. 2d 1129,

10

1138 n.6 (D. Nev. 1999)). Plaintiff must show that he and the “prospective opt-in

11

plaintiffs” are similarly situated “with respect to their job requirements and with regard to

12

their pay provisions.” Wood v. TriVita, Inc., No. CV-08-0765-PHX-SRB, 2009 WL

13

2046048, at *4 (D. Ariz. Jan. 22, 2009). Plaintiff need not “provide evidence that every

14

facility relevant to the proposed class maintains an illegal policy”—he is “not asking the

15

court to infer a finding of liability at all of [Defendant’s] facilities.” Adams v. Inter-Con

16

Sec. Sys., Inc., 242 F.R.D. 530, 537 (N.D. Cal. 2007).

17

determination in whether to conditionally certify a proposed class for notification purposes

18

only, courts do not review the underlying merits of the action.” Colson, 687 F. Supp. 2d at

19

926.

Moreover, “in making a

20

Plaintiff seeks that notice be provided in all of Rise’s statewide locations to those

21

who hold the same job duties as him. He has adequately alleged that all such employees

22

are subject to the same leadership at the statewide level; all have been issued the same

23

employee manuals; all are bound by the same written employee, training and compensation

24

policies; and all are subject to off-the-clock work due to the training requirements that

25

remain uncompensated. He also submits a virtually identical job advertisement for the

26

same DSP position in either existing or potential Rise facilities in Bullhead City, Bisbee,

27

Douglas, Kingman, Lake Havasu City, Sierra Vista, Thatcher, Tucson, and Yuma, as well

28

as metropolitan Phoenix facilities. He alleges that these job advertisements demonstrate

-3-

1

similar job requirements and policies at each location. They further indicate that all DSPs

2

statewide are to be paid for training.

3

For purposes of conditional certification only, Rise concedes that Plaintiff has made

4

a case for providing notice, but only to the DSPs employed by Rise in the Phoenix

5

Metropolitan area. Because no other Plaintiff or employee identified as suffering a

6

common claim comes from outside that area, and because other areas throughout the state

7

are subject to different regional leadership, it opposes the conditional certification of a

8

statewide class of DSPs. Yet, at this stage, the similar employment position, similar

9

statewide leadership, and same statewide employment policies are sufficient for this Court

10

to determine that those holding similar statewide positions are sufficiently similar to

11

Plaintiff to receive notice of his claim.

12

There remains, however, a further dispute about what claims should be subject to

13

notice. In his Reply, Plaintiff either drops some of his initial claims or, in any event,

14

clarifies that he only seeks “one claim for unpaid overtime, which involves the requirement

15

that the DSPs complete training off the clock to avoid interfering with their caregiving

16

duties at the Rise facilities where they are expected to work nonstop with patients.” (Doc.

17

29 at 2.) In light of this concession, this will be the claim to be noticed to other Rise DSPs

18

understanding, of course, that in such cases the amount of overtime needs to be

19

appropriately calculated and could conceivably result in a violation of minimum wage

20

laws...

21

At this notice stage, and in light of Plaintiff’s allegations of willful violation, a three-

22

year statute of limitations shall apply. Acosta v. TBG Logistics LLC, No. CV-16-02916-

23

PHX-ROS, 2018 WL 3145938, at *2 (D. Ariz. June 27, 2018). Should Plaintiff fail to

24

establish a willful violation, the conditional certification can be altered through

25

decertification or at summary judgment. Smith v. Akal Sec. Inc., No. CV-18-01117-PHX-

26

SMB, 2019 WL 1932117, at *2 (D. Ariz. May 1, 2019); Vega v. All My Sons Bus. Dev.

27

LLC, CV-20-00284-TUC-RCC, 2022 WL 294216, at *3 (D. Ariz. Feb. 1, 2022). The

28

notice shall, therefore, provide for the possibility of viable claims back to February 18,

-4-

1

2019.

2

II.

Notice

3

Plaintiff requests that this notice be distributed by first class mail, email, and text

4

message, and those individuals interested in participating be given sixty days from

5

distribution to return their consents to Plaintiff’s counsel. Finally, Plaintiff requests a

6

fourteen-day discovery deadline for Rise to produce the names, last known addresses,

7

email address, and cell phone numbers of all current and former security officers employed

8

with Rise from February 18, 2019 to the present.

9

The Court finds the text of the notice attached to the Reply to be unobjectionable

10

once the phrase “This is not a solicitation from a lawyer” is deleted. It authorizes the notice

11

to be sent by first class mail, email, and text message. Defendants will be required to

12

provide last known addresses, email addresses, and cell phone numbers for their current

13

and past DSPs whose employment falls within the notice period within fourteen days of

14

the date of this Order.

15

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED as follows:

16

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Conditional FLSA Certification and to Authorize

17

Notice to Similarly Situated Persons under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and for

18

Expedited Discovery (Doc. 18) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part

19

as stated in this Order.

20

2. The Court ORDERS conditional certification of the class of Rise’s Direct

21

Support Professionals employed in Arizona since February 18, 2019 who

22

claim that they are owed unpaid minimum wage and overtime pay under the

23

FLSA because Rise allegedly required Direct Support Professionals to

24

routinely perform certain activities off-the -clock without pay, including the

25

completion of mandatory training.

26

3. The Court APPROVES the proposed Notice attached to Plaintiff’s Reply

27

(Doc. 29-1) once the phrase at the top which states “This is not a solicitation

28

from a lawyer” is deleted. The Court further authorizes the Consent to Opt-

-5-

1

In Form (Doc. 18-2) attached as Exhibit 2 to Plaintiff’s Motion

2

4. The Court AUTHORIZES Plaintiff to mail and email the proposed Notice

3

to Rise’s DSPs statewide. It also authorizes Plaintiff to send a text message

4

regarding the Notice to the individual prospective Plaintiffs.

5

5. The Court further ORDERS that Defendants shall provide to Plaintiff, within

6

14 days of the date this Order is electronically filed, the names, mailing

7

addresses, email addresses, and cell phone numbers of all current and former

8

DSPs who worked for Rise in Arizona from February 18, 2019 through the

9

date the information is provided.

10

Dated this 2nd day of August, 2022.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-6-