Helms v. Ford Enginering Inc et al

Filing 19

ORDER granting as modified 11 Motion. The Court certifies this group "All hourly construction workers employed by Defendants Ford Engineering, Inc. and Robert Trent Ford at any time between July 27, 2013 and August 3, 2017". It is not a class, it's a group pursuing a collective action. Calling it a class invites confusion because of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court approves the proposed notice, consent, and reminder postcard with some revision as follows: Add th e end date for the group; and replace all references to a class with references to the group or the collective action. The Court declines to make the other changes requested by Ford. Fords' spreadsheet of names should include home addresses and telephone numbers (home and cell). Nothing else is necessary. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 8/3/2017. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
CYREL HELMS, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated

v.

PLAINTIFF

No. 4:16-cv-541-DPM

FORD ENGINEERING, INC.
and ROBERT TRENT FORD

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Helms has moved for conditional certification of a collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and approval of related notices. Ford
Engineering and Robert Ford object, mostly on the grounds that the company
has a lawful payment policy and that Helms was part of a small crew - a
group too small to certify.
Under the applicable standard, Helms has made the necessary modest
factual showing that he and others in the potential group are similarly

situated. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 169-170 (1989);

Freeman v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 256 F. Supp. 2d 941, 944-45 (W.D. Ark. 2003).
Whether Helms and others were paid what they were owed is for another
day. At this stage, the Court looks to see if the potential group members
worked the same job, during the same period of time, performed the same

duties, and were subject to the same payment policies. Smith v. Frac Tech

Services, Ltd., 2009 WL 4251017 at *4 (E.D. Ark. 2009). Helms and others fit
this bill.
Defendants' other argument-that Helms worked within a small,
specialized crew, making the case inappropriate for a collective action-is
better addressed later, after discovery is complete and the record is full with
information about other potential group members. Subgroups are possible,
as is decertification. At this point, although the testimony is in conflict, Helms
has carried the similarly situated burden.
The Court therefore certifies this group:*
All hourly construction workers employed by Defendants Ford
Engineering, Inc. and Robert Trent Ford at any time between July
27, 2013 and August 3, 2017.
The Court approves the proposed notice, consent, and reminder
postcard with some revisions. (Helms's request to use email for notice has
been withdrawn.) The revisions: Add the end date for the group; and
replace all references to a class with references to the group or the collective

*It is not a class, it's a group pursuing a collective action. Calling it a

class invites confusion because of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
-2-

action. The Court declines to make the other changes requested by Ford. The
Fords' spreadsheet of names should include home addresses and telephone
numbers (home and cell). Nothing else is necessary. Here's the schedule:

•

Defendants Produce Spreadsheet

18 August 2017

•

Notice Period Opens

18 August 2017

•

Deadline to Mail Notice

•

Deadline to Mail Reminder Postcard

•

Opt-in Period Closes

1 September 2017
6 October 2017
17 November 2017

*

*

*

Motion, Ng 11, granted as modified.
So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge

-3-