Beall v. SST Energy Corporation
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CONDITIONAL FLSA COLLECTIVE ACTION CERTIFICATION: The Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff, Shannon Beall's, Amended Motion for Conditional Certification 49 and conditionally certifies this as a FLSA collec tive action. Mr. Beall may send the Proposed Notice and Consent Form (after making the revisions identified in the Court's above discussion) to putative plaintiffs, and the Court adopts the schedule set forth in Mr. Beall's Amended Motion. by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 1/25/16. Text Only Entry(msksec, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger
Civil Action No. 15-cv-01741-MSK-NYW
SHANNON R. BEALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
SST ENERGY CORPORATION,
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CONDITIONAL FLSA COLLECTIVE
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Conditional
Certification and Notice to Putative Class Members (#49), Defendant’s Response (#51), and
Plaintiff’s Reply (#54).
Plaintiff, Shannon Beall, filed this lawsuit on behalf of himself and other alleged
similarly-situated employees of Defendant, SST Energy Corporation (“SST”), asserting overtime
pay violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. (“FLSA”).
Mr. Beall was employed by SST from March 2011 through March of 2015. Although
Mr. Beall held different positions during his employment, at all times he states that he was
categorized as a nonexempt, hourly employee. Mr. Beall asserts that he was paid an hourly wage
plus nondiscretionary bonuses, and that he regularly worked for SST in excess of forty hours a
week. In calculating overtime pay owed to Mr. Beall, he alleges that SST did not include his
nondiscretionary bonus pay. Mr. Beall’s Complaint (#1) and Affidavit (#49-5), state that this
pay schedule was a universal policy applicable to calculating overtime pay for all hourly,
The FLSA permits an employee to sue their employee for unpaid wages, overtime, and
liquidated damages on behalf of themselves and similarly-situated employees who choose to optin to the lawsuit. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Similarly situated FSLA plaintiffs may join in a collective
action. Such action is not a Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class action, however. FLSA action claimants
retain the right to separately pursue their rights and are only bound by the outcome of the
collective action if they expressly choose to join in the litigation. See Genesis Healthcare Corp.
v. Smith, 133 S.Ct. 1523, 1529 (2013); see also Saarela v. Union Colony Protective Servs., Inc.,
No. 13-cv-01637-MSK-MJW, 2014 WL 3408771, *2 (D. Colo. July 14, 2014).
In the initial stages of an FLSA action and prior to the bulk of discovery, the Court
determines whether to conditionally “certify” a collective action. 1 Thiessen v. General Electric
Capital Corp., 267 F.3d 1095, 1105 (10th Cir. 2001). A Court grants conditional certification
upon a finding that the plaintiff and other putative plaintiffs were allegedly victims of a single
decision, policy, or schedule. See Lysyj v. Milner Distribution Alliance, Inc., No. 13-cv-01930RM-MJW, 2014 WL 273214, *2 (D. Colo. Jan. 24, 2014) (citing Boldozier v. Am. Family Mut.
Ins. Co., 375 F.Supp.2d 1089, 1092 (D. Colo. 2005)). Thus, a plaintiff’s burden at this stage is a
minimal one. See Thiessen, 267 F.3d at 1102; Grady v. Alpine Auto Recovery, No. 15-cv-00377PAB-MEH, 2015 WL 3902774, *2 (D. Colo. June 24, 2015); Kinne v. Rocky Mountain EMS,
Inc., No. 12-cv-02710-REB-CBS, 2013 WL 4882532, *2 (D. Colo. Sept. 12, 2013). Despite the
Frequent references to “collective class” often result in confusion between the FSLA collective
class and “class actions” that arise under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. A fuller discussion of this confusion
and common about how collective actions proceed is found in Turner v. Chipotle Mexican Grill,
Inc., ___ F.Supp.3d ___, ___, 2015 WL 4979770, * 4-6 (D. Colo. 2015).
lenient standard at this stage, mere conclusory declarations or those based on hearsay or
speculation are insufficient to grant conditional FLSA collective action certification. See
Saarela, 2014 WL 3408771, *3.
Mr. Beall states that he was an hourly, nonexempt employee of SST, which is supported
by employee status change forms that confirm such employment in 2014, 2012, and non-exempt
in 2011. 2 As evidence that his overtime pay was not properly calculated, he introduced a
memorandum he received from SST explaining that there “may have been an error in the
calculation of overtime compensation pertaining to the company paid bottom hole bonuses,” and
a check SST sent him in the amount of the additional overtime SST believed Mr. Beall was
owed. In support of his statements that the failure to properly pay overtime affected other
putative plaintiffs, Mr. Beall introduced the affidavit of another SST hourly employee, Robert
McComas, who corroborated that SST routinely failed to factor in nondiscretionary bonuses
when calculating overtime pay. Mr. McComas received the same memorandum Mr. Beall
received regarding overtime pay errors, which was directed to “Affected employees of SST
Energy Corporation.” The Court finds Mr. Beall’s allegations and evidence sufficient to
establish at this early stage that there may be other similarly-situated putative collective action
plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Court conditionally certifies this as a collective action. 3
The status form for 2014 represents that Mr. Beall was an “hourly” and “nonexempt”
employee. However, the 2012 form reflects that Mr. Beall was an “hourly” employee, while the
2011 form states he was “nonexempt.” The Court is unaware whether, in 2012 or 2011, Mr.
Beall was both hourly and nonexempt, but will presume for purposes of this motion that at some
point Mr. Beall was both hourly and nonexempt.
The Court is not persuaded by SST’s argument that before determining whether the putative
claimants were victims of the same unlawful pay schedule or policy, the Court must find that
they shared similar job duties. SST cites no authority for this proposition and the Court is aware
of none. The test is whether the putative plaintiffs were affected by the same policy or error.
Upon granting conditional certification of an FLSA collective action, a plaintiff may send
a Hoffman-La Roche notice to putative plaintiffs, informing them of the litigation and giving
instructions in order to join in the action. SST also objects to Mr. Beall’s Proposed Hoffman-La
Roche Notice (#49-4). Each is addressed below. 4
SST contends that the Proposed Notice improperly identifies certain bonuses that
employees may have received. Without definitive evidence as to the accuracy of the
named bonuses, the Court directs Mr. Beall to amend the relevant portion of the Proposed
Notice from “employees of SST who were paid hourly and received a non-discretionary
bonus (i.e. Curve Bonus, Bottom Hole Bonus, and/or Completion Bonus/ End of Well
Bonus) to “employees of SST who were paid hourly and received a non-discretionary
bonus (which may include a Curve Bonus, Bottom Hole Bonus, and /or Completion
Bonus/ End of Well Bonus).” Any dispute as to the description or applicability of the
described bonus may be raised at a later point in time.
SST objects to the following sentence found at page one: “SST was not authorized to
send you this correspondence or this additional compensation, and the documents may
have been confusing or misleading.” The Court has made no such finding, and there is
no showing that this was the case. Therefore, this statement must be deleted.
SST requests that the notice inform putative collective action plaintiffs that opting into
lawsuit will result in disclosure of putative plaintiffs’ payroll and personnel records. SST
has not cited not authority as to the veracity of this statement, much less authority
SST’s contention that Mr. Beall was terminated for “instances of incompetent or seriously
inappropriate discriminatory conduct,” is not relevant to this issue.
Mr. Beall shall ensure the caption on the Proposed Notice is in compliance with local rules and
any specific order entered by Magistrate Judge Wang.
suggesting that FLSA collective action notices must contain this information. It shall not
Lastly, SST objects to language in the Proposed Notice directing putative plaintiffs not to
contact SST or SST’s lawyers because many such putative plaintiffs are current or
prospective SST employees who need to communicate with SST. SST’s characterization
of this language is overly broad. The actual language in the Proposed Notice advises
putative plaintiffs not to communicate with SST “about this lawsuit or seek advice from
them on whether you should participate.” Such advisement is appropriate.
Mr. Beall requests the Court adopt the proposed schedule for giving notice and collecting
consent forms, set forth at page 14 of his Motion. There is no objection, and thus the Court will
adopt the schedule below:
10 Days From Order Approving Notice
to Putative Plaintiffs
20 Days From Order Approving Notice
to Putative Plaintiffs
60 Days From Order Approving Notice
to Putative Plaintiffs
30 Days from Date Notice is Mailed to
SST to disclose the names, last known addresses,
email addresses, and phone numbers of those
described in the above-referenced group of Putative
Plaintiffs to be notified in a usable electronic format.
Plaintiff’s Counsel shall send by mail and email the
Court approved Notice and Consent Form to the
The Putative Plaintiffs shall have 60 days to return
their signed Consent forms to Plaintiff’s counsel for
filing with the Court.
Plaintiff’s Counsel is authorized to send by mail and
email a second identical copy of the notice/consent
form to the Putative Plaintiffs reminding them of the
deadline for the submission of the Consent forms.
Plaintiff’s Counsel is authorized to call Putative
Plaintiffs to ensure the consent forms were received. 5
Plaintiff’s Counsel will confer with SST concerning the use of a script similar to the transcripts
previously approved by courts in this district.
The Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff, Shannon Beall’s, Amended Motion for
Conditional Certification (#49) and conditionally certifies this as a FLSA collective action. Mr.
Beall may send the Proposed Notice and Consent Form (after making the revisions identified in
the Court’s above discussion) to putative plaintiffs, and the Court adopts the schedule set forth in
Mr. Beall’s Amended Motion.
Dated this 25th day of January, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
Marcia S. Krieger
Chief United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?