Bradley v. Crittenden County, Arkansas

Filing 11

ORDER denying without prejudice as premature 4 Motion. While discovery takes place, the Court tolls the statute of limitations, effective 6/11/2018. Agreed or proposed motion to conditionally certify due by 7/25/2018. Response due by 8/3/2018. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 6/11/2018. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JONESBORO DIVISION
LISA BRADLEY, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated

v.

PLAINTIFF

No. 3:18-cv-29-DPM

CRITTENDEN COUNTY, ARKANSAS

DEFENDANT

ORDER
Bradley seeks conditional certification of a FLSA collective action.
She alleges that Crittenden County had a standard policy that didn't
pay its hourly, non-patrol deputy sheriffs-the folks who, like her, ran
its detention center- overtime. Crittenden County denies this, arguing
hard that it never underpaid Bradley and that conditional certification
is inappropriate because Bradley's proposed group is too broad. The
County says that there are various types of detention center deputies,
who aren't necessarily paid the same way.
While the standard for conditional certification is fairly lenient,
Freeman v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 256 F. Supp. 2d 941, 944-45

(W.D. Ark. 2003), this case has just started. Bradley's only evidence that
all employees were subject to the same pay policy is her affidavit. The
Court must also consider the County's affidavits. The balance isn't
clear enough for the Court to say with conviction, albeit tentatively so,
that every hourly, non-patrol deputy was similarly situated. Booking

officers and supervisors, for example, may have been paid differently
than transportation specialists like Bradley. Some focused discovery
now can eliminate this uncertainty. For instance, Bradley could depose
one or both of the County affiants on the similarly situated and
numbers issues. It's better to do this at the threshold than to wait and
discover eventually that disparate facts exist within the proposed
group of approximately two hundred. There's no prejudice to either
party in doing so.
Bradley's motion, NQ 4, is denied without prejudice as premature
and with instructions. The parties must promptly engage in targeted
discovery.

This will help to identify a more solid FLSA group or

groups. It will also move Bradley's case forward; the Court would like
to keep to its Scheduling Order, NQ 10. While this discovery takes place,
the Court tolls the statute of limitations, effective 11 June 2018.

*

*

*

Agreed or opposed motion to conditionally certify due by
25 July 2018. Response, if necessary, due by 3 August 2018. The parties
need not refile all their papers. Supplemental materials will be enough.
The Court will consider everything already filed when it reconsiders.
So Ordered.

-2-