Gaston v. Valley National Bancorp et al

Filing 54

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: After reviewing the record and the parties submissions, the Court overrules VNBs objections. Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 8/30/2018. (Innelli, Michael)

Case 1:17-cv-01886-FB-SMG Document 54 Filed 08/30/18 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1210

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------x
MARITZA GASTON and GEORGE
GALLART, on behalf of themselves and
all similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Case No. 17-CV-1886 (FB) (SMG)

-againstVALLEY NATIONAL BANCORP and
VALLEY NATIONAL BANK,
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------x
BLOCK, Senior District Judge:
On April 3, 2017, Plaintiffs brought a class action and a collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the New York Labor Law against
Defendants Valley National Bancorp and Valley National Bank (collectively,
“VNB”), alleging that they are or were employed as Bank Service Managers
(“BSMs”) at VNB and were underpaid due to being misclassified as exempt
employees under FLSA. See 29 U.S.C. § 213. On December 6, 2017, Magistrate
Judge Gold issued an order (the “Order”)1 conditionally certifying the action and

1

Technically, the full text of the Order was a docket entry dated December 7,
2017, “granting Motion to Certify FLSA Collective Action for reasons stated on the
record during the oral argument held today.” Dkt. No. 40. For brevity, the
Magistrate Judge’s statements from the oral argument will be referred to as the
Order.
1

Case 1:17-cv-01886-FB-SMG Document 54 Filed 08/30/18 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 1211

authorizing notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).2 VNB
objects, arguing that the discovery that has already taken place shows that the BSMs
performed different exempt duties and had different reporting chains, and that
therefore the named BSMs and any potential opt-in BSMs could not have been
victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law—a requirement for
certification. VNB also contends that the Magistrate Judge improperly shifted the
evidentiary burden onto it. After reviewing the record and the parties’ submissions,
the Court overrules VNB’s objections.
I.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), “a party may serve and file
objections” to non-dispositive pretrial orders issued by a magistrate judge. When a
party files a timely objection, the district judge must “modify or set aside any part
of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.”3 “A finding is clearly
erroneous when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the
entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been

2

The Magistrate Judge had the authority to issue the Order as a nondispositive pretrial order, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). See Summa v.
Hofstra Univ., 715 F. Supp. 2d 378, 384 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (holding the conditional
certification of a collective action to be a non-dispositive pretrial order).
3

VNB “assume[s], but [does] not concede” that the proper standard of review
is clear error. There is no question that an order conditionally certifying a collective
action is “not dispositive of a party’s claim or defense.” Summa, 715 F. Supp. 2d at
384. Under the plain text of the rule, that is indeed the appropriate standard.
2

Case 1:17-cv-01886-FB-SMG Document 54 Filed 08/30/18 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 1212

committed.”

McEarchen v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., 13-CV-03569, 2014 WL

4701164, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2014) (quoting United States v. Isiofia, 370 F.3d
226, 232 (2d Cir. 2004) (alterations omitted)). “An order is contrary to law when it
fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law or rules of procedure.” Id.
(quoting Summa, 715 F. Supp. 2d at 384).
II.
In the Second Circuit, courts follow a two-step process for the certification of
collective actions under FLSA. First, upon a “modest factual showing” that there
may be opt-in plaintiffs who were victims of a common policy or plan that violated
the law and also affected the named plaintiffs, the court conditionally certifies the
action to allow for notice and further discovery. Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures,
Inc., 811 F.3d 528 (2d Cir. 2015). Second, if it turns out that the opt-in plaintiffs are
not similarly situated, the court can “de-certify” the action. Myers, 624 F.3d at 555.
Some district courts in this circuit have begun using a “modest-plus” standard
in cases where some discovery has already occurred prior to the conditional
certification motion. See Korenblum v. Citigroup, Inc., 195 F. Supp. 3d 475, 482
(S.D.N.Y. 2016). Under this standard, the court “look[s] beyond the pleadings and
affidavits submitted by Plaintiffs and will consider the evidence submitted by both
parties, albeit with an understanding ‘that the body of evidence is necessarily
incomplete.’” Id. (quoting Creely v. HCR ManorCare, Inc., 789 F. Supp. 2d 819,
3

Case 1:17-cv-01886-FB-SMG Document 54 Filed 08/30/18 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 1213

826 (N.D. Ohio 2011)). That is the standard Magistrate Judge professed to apply in
the Order.
During the hearing, VNB pressed the argument that the two named plaintiffs
(and one additional plaintiff who has already opted in) are dissimilar in that they
testified in depositions to performing differing amounts (and different types) of
exempt work. Therefore, VNB argued, they are not similarly situated to one another,
and Plaintiffs have made no showing that there are likely other BSMs who are
similarly situated to them. In the Order, however, the Magistrate Judge noted that
all three BSMs testified to spending the overwhelming majority of their time
performing non-exempt work, and in that respect are similarly situated. See Order
at 30:17–19. Additionally, each has testified to having spoken with other BSMs who
described similar experiences. Order at 39:5–19.
In its objection, VNB makes two principal arguments. First, it argues that the
Magistrate Judge misapplied the “modest-plus” standard, contending that
“substantial” discovery has already taken place.

Second, it claims that the

Magistrate Judge improperly shifted the burden to it to produce evidence to disprove
conditional certification. Neither argument is persuasive.4

4

VNB also objects to the Magistrate Judge’s focus on how much time
Plaintiffs spent on non-exempt tasks. VNB marshals considerable authority in
arguing that that is an inappropriate measure of the primary duty test for exempt
status. That, however, goes to the merits of the FLSA action, which is inappropriate
to consider at this procedural stage of the litigation.
4

Case 1:17-cv-01886-FB-SMG Document 54 Filed 08/30/18 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 1214

As noted above, the standard for conditional certification is quite low. The
Magistrate Judge correctly described Korenblum’s “modest-plus” standard as a
“sliding scale,” with progressively more scrutiny applied as more evidence enters
the record. And on the record before the Court, there is no indication that the order
was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. In fact, very little discovery has taken
place, with only the three witnesses deposed. As the Magistrate Judge found, there
is nothing in the depositions “inconsistent with the assertions in the affidavits that
[nonexempt work] was a tiny percentage of their time.” Order at 29:20–22; see also
Korenblum, 195 F. Supp. 3d at 480 (“Courts typically decide the question of
preliminary certification—not having had the benefit of full discovery—based on
the pleadings, affidavits and declarations submitted by the plaintiff.” (internal
citation and quotation marks omitted)).5
VNB’s second argument is unavailing as well. First, VNB cites a comment
from the oral argument in which the Magistrate Judge said he saw nothing in
Plaintiffs’ depositions contradicting their affidavits. VNB argues that this amounts

5

VNB also seems to suggest that even the bare “modest” standard was
misapplied because the Magistrate Judge at one point said “we don’t know about
these other service managers”—a sentence VNB quotes repeatedly to suggest that
the Order was contrary to law because the Magistrate Judge did not require Plaintiffs
to make any kind of showing that there was a common policy or plan that violated
FLSA. A review of the Order, however, makes clear that this is not the case. The
Magistrate Judge clearly based his findings in part on the allegations that the named
plaintiffs also spoke with other BSMs who had similar experiences. See Order at
39:13–19. That finding is not clearly erroneous. 
5

Case 1:17-cv-01886-FB-SMG Document 54 Filed 08/30/18 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 1215

to a standard in which employers can only defeat conditional certification motions
“by establishing that such testimony is perjurious.” But the fact that such testimony
is often sufficient is not a result of improper burden-shifting, but rather a
consequence of the low evidentiary threshold (the “modest showing”) called for at
the first step of the conditional certification motion.
VNB likewise argues that the fact that the Magistrate Judge pointed out that
information about similarities and differences between conditions in New Jersey and
Florida is “uniquely within the possession of the defendants” means he shifted the
burden of proof to the defendants. To the contrary, he was merely pointing out it
would be impossible for the plaintiffs to make a showing about Florida until fuller
discovery is conducted, the facilitation of which is the whole point of the two-step
certification process.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, VNB’s objection is overruled.
SO ORDERED.

/S/ Frederic Block
FREDERIC BLOCK
Senior United States District Judge
Brooklyn, New York
August 30, 2018

6