Adams et al v. City of Manchester

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (see order for details) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED. [Doc. 22 ] The collective action classes are conditionally certified pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). One class shall consist of current and former records clerks and police officers who performed work-related activities without pay at least twelve (12) minutes before the scheduled starts of their shifts within the last three (3) years. The other class shall consist of current and fo rmer records clerks who were not provided overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty (40) in a single workweek within the last three (3) years. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within fourteen days of the date of this Order, Defendant is to identify all police officers and records clerks employed in the last three years and is to provide Plaintiffs' counsel with a computer readable data file listing the names, last known address, and dates of employment for each such employee. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within fourteen days of the date of this Order, Defendant is to post notice of this case in its break room at its office. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiffs may send notices and consent forms to potential opt-in class members in forms substantially identical to the notices submitted as Exhibits 14 and 15 and forms submitted as Exhibit 13. ( Response to Court due by 1/26/2012.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas C. Mummert, III on 01/12/2012. (CBL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JESSICA ADAMS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CITY OF MANCHESTER,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:11cv1309 TCM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court1 on Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion to Conditionally
Certify Class, Order Disclosure of Putative Class Members' Names and Contact Information,
and to Facilitate Class Notice. [Doc. 22] The purported class members are current and
former records clerk and police officers employed by the City of Manchester ("Defendant").
Background
Plaintiff Jessica Adams was employed by Defendant, a municipal government and
employer, as a record clerk from October 2009 through July 2011. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 5, 7;
ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff Charles Everingham was a police officer employed by Defendant
through 2010. (Id. ¶ 6.)
Plaintiffs allege in Count I of their six-count amended complaint that police officers
and records clerks employed by Defendant were required "to engage in preparatory activities,
end of shift work and other related work activities" for at least twelve-minutes before and

The case is before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge by written
consent of the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
1

after each work shift and were not paid any compensation for this time, in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201-219 . (Id. ¶¶ 15, 29, 30.) In Count II,
Plaintiffs allege that records clerks were denied overtime payment for time worked in excess
of forty hours during a single workweek, also in violation of the FLSA. (Id. ¶ 53-54.)
Plaintiffs bring Missouri statutory and common law claims in Counts III through VI.
Specifically, they allege in Count III a violation of Missouri's wage and hour laws,
Mo.Rev.Stat. § 290.500 – 290.530; in Count IV a breach of contract; in Count V a claim of
quantum meruit; and in Count VI a claim of unjust enrichment.
Attached as an exhibit to Plaintiffs' motion are time records for police officers and
records clerks that apparently add twelve minutes to a twelve-hour shift for these employees.
(Plfs. Ex. 1; ECF No. 23-1.) Other exhibits include four affidavits from purported class
members in which each affiant avers that he or she (a) was required by Defendant to arrive
twelve minutes early for work shifts to perform regular duties for which they were not
compensated and (b) witnessed other records clerks and police officers doing the same.
(Plfs. Exs. 2-5; ECF Nos. 23-2-23-5.) Defendant's personnel manual defines a workweek
as starting on Sunday and ending on Saturday and provides that "[t]he majority of employees
will work . . . for a total of forty (40) hours each week." (Plfs. Ex. 6; ECF No. 23-6.) Nonexempt employees, e.g., employees who are not police officers, are to be compensated at
"one-and-one-half times their regular hourly rate" for any time that exceeds forty hours per
workweek. (Id.) Affiants aver that no overtime was paid by Defendant for the hours worked
in excess of forty hours a workweek. (Plfs. Exs. 2, 3, 5; ECF Nos. 23-2, 23-3, 23-5.) Pay

-2-

records attached to the motion support the allegations about hours worked and compensation
paid. (Plfs. Ex. 8; ECF No. 23-8.)
In their pending motion, Plaintiffs request that the Court conditionally certify this case
as a collective action; authorize them to send notice under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) to two defined
classes of individuals; order Defendant to provide them with a computer-readable data file
listing the name, last known address, and employment dates of each employee; and post
notice of the case in the break room of its office.
Discussion
Section 216(b) provides that an action "may be maintained against any employer
(including a public agency) . . . for and in behalf of himself or themselves and other
employees similarly situated." 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Further, "[n]o employee shall be a party
plaintiff to any such action unless he gives his consent in writing to become such a party and
such consent is filed in the court in which such action is brought." Id. Although neither the
FLSA or the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has defined the term "similarly situated" as
used in § 216(b), the Eleventh Circuit has held "that section 216(b)'s 'similarly situated'
requirement is less stringent than that for joinder under Rule 20(a) and for separate trials
under Rule 42(b)." Grayson v. K Mart Corp., 79 F.3d 1086, 1096 (11th Cir. 1996). The
standard is also less stringent than that for class actions under Rule 23(b)(3). Id.; accord
Morgan v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., 551 F.3d 1233, 1259 n.36 (11th Cir. 2008).
District courts within the Eighth Circuit "conduct a two-step analysis to determine
whether employees are 'similarly situated'" for purposes of § 261(b). Littlefield v. Dealer
Warranty Servs., LLC, 679 F. Supp.2d 1014, 1016 (E.D. Mo. 2010); accord Rikard v.
-3-

U.S. Auto Protection, LLC, 2011 WL 6754908, *1 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 23, 2011) (citing two
other Eastern District of Missouri cases holding the same). At the first step, plaintiffs seek
conditional class certification. Littlefield, 679 F. Supp.2d at 1016. The plaintiffs burden
at this first step "is not onerous and the merits of a plaintiff's claims are not considered."
Huang v. Gateway Hotel Holdings, 248 F.R.D. 225, 227 (E.D. Mo. 2008); Smith v.
Heartland Auto. Servs., Inc., 404 F. Supp.2d 1144, 1149 (D. Minn. 2005). Plaintiffs need
not show at this step that class members are "actually similarly situated." Huang, 248
F.R.D. at 227; Fast v. Applebee's Int'l, Inc., 243 F.R.D. 360, 363 (W.D. Mo. 2007).
At the second step, a defendant may move to decertify the class, usually after the
close of discovery. Littlefield, 679 F. Supp.2d at 1016-17; Kautsch v. Premier Commc'ns,
504 F. Supp.2d 685, 688 (W.D. Mo. 2007). It is at this step that "the court must determine
whether the plaintiffs are, in fact, similarly situated," although, as noted above, they "need
not be identically situated." Littlefield, 679 F. Supp.2d at 1017 (internal quotations
omitted); accord Grayson, 79 F.3d at 1096; Fast, 243 F.R.D. at 363.
The allegations in the amended complaint, supported by affidavits and documents
attached to the motion, clearly carry Plaintiffs' burden at the first step to show a class of
similarly situated employees of Defendant. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED. [Doc. 22] The
collective action classes are conditionally certified pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). One class
shall consist of current and former records clerks and police officers who performed workrelated activities without pay at least twelve (12) minutes before the scheduled starts of their

-4-

shifts within the last three (3) years. The other class shall consist of current and former
records clerks who were not provided overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of
forty (40) in a single workweek within the last three (3) years.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within fourteen days of the date of this Order,
Defendant is to identify all police officers and records clerks employed in the last three years
and is to provide Plaintiffs' counsel with a computer readable data file listing the names, last
known address, and dates of employment for each such employee.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within fourteen days of the date of this Order,
Defendant is to post notice of this case in its break room at its office.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiffs may send notices and consent forms to
potential opt-in class members in forms substantially identical to the notices submitted as
Exhibits 14 and 15 and forms submitted as Exhibit 13.

/s/Thomas C. Mummert, III
THOMAS C. MUMMERT, III
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated this 12th day of January, 2012.

-5-