Amalgamated Transit Union, Division 618, et al v. RIPTA

Filing 8

ORDER granting 6 Joint MOTION for Preliminary Certification of Rule 23 Settlement Class and Preliminary Certification of FLSA Collective Action, and for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement . So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 10/10/2018. (Jackson, Ryan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
______________________________________________
)
DIVISION 618, AMALGAMATED TRANSIT )
UNION, KEVIN COLE ET AL.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
C.A. No. 18-226-WES-PAS
)
RHODE ISLAND PUBLIC TRANSIT
)
AUTHORITY,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________)
ORDER
The

Court

Settlement

has

Class

reviewed

and

the

Preliminary

Motion

for

Certification

Certification

of

Fair

of

Labor

Standards Act Collective Action, and for Preliminary Approval of
Proposed Settlement. (“Joint Mot.”) (ECF No. 6.)

This Motion was

filed

Public

jointly

by

the

Defendant,

Rhode

Island

Transit

Authority (“RIPTA”) and the Plaintiff, Division 618, Amalgamated
Transit Union (the “Union”) and three members of its bargaining
unit

who

are

individually

named

Plaintiffs

in

this

suit

(collectively, “Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated.

For the reasons set forth below, the

Court conditionally certifies the settlement class, preliminarily
certifies the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) collective action,
and preliminarily approves the proposed settlement.

I. Certification
The parties have requested an order certifying the Rule 23
settlement class and preliminarily certifying the FLSA collective
action.

The Court recognizes that the parties have stipulated

that the individuals who make up both classes are in the Union’s
bargaining unit and were employed as full-time bus operators for
RIPTA between April 24, 2015 and the date of the Settlement
Agreement and General Release (“Settlement Agreement”).
A.

The Court Grants Certification of the Rule 23 Class
Action

When seeking class certification, it must be demonstrated
that the proposed class meets the requirements of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure Rule 23(a) and one of the three categories in Rule
23(b).

Rule 23(a) permits one or more members of a class to

represent all class members’ interests if (1) the class is so
numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there
are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims
or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims
or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will
fairly

and

adequately

protect

the

interests

of

the

class.

Additionally, the applicable category of Rule 23(b)(3) requires
that questions of law or fact common to class members predominate
over any questions affecting only individual members and that a

2

class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and
efficiently adjudicating the controversy.
First, this putative class consists of approximately 500 bus
operators, and attempting to join all members of the class can
reasonably be viewed as impracticable.

Thus, the standard for

numerosity is satisfied.
Second, the legal claims in this matter depend on factual
contention that RIPTA did not compensate its bus operators under
the Union’s collective bargaining agreement for their split-shift
travel time.

Additionally, all plaintiffs face the common legal

issue of whether the alleged failure to pay split-shift travel
time violates both the FLSA and Rhode Island law.

There is

accordingly commonality of factual and legal issues within the
class.
Third, each named plaintiff, like other RIPTA bus operators
in

the

putative

class,

allege

that

they

did

not

receive

compensation for their travel to and from RIPTA’s Elmwood garage
and Kennedy Plaza. The Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”)
stipulates the trip takes eighteen minutes, a typical period across
all class members. Therefore, there is typicality among the class
representatives’ claims and those of the class.
Fourth, the class representatives are aligned with the class
members and are not seeking incentive payments.

Their proposed

settlement compensation is the same as all other putative class
3

members.

Furthermore, Plaintiff’s counsel is highly qualified and

able to carry out their corresponding duties as class counsel.
The

Court

thus

finds

it

is

reasonable

to

believe

that

the

representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class.
Lastly, each putative plaintiff has the same causes of action
against RIPTA based on the practice or policy of not paying
operators
period.

for

split-shift

travel

time

during

the

settlement

All putative class members belong to the same bargaining

unit of Plaintiff’s Union and have regularly disputed issues with
management collectively.

Moreover, no putative class members have

initiated suit against RIPTA on any similar grounds outside of
this matter.
Therefore,

because

common

questions

of

fact

and

law

predominate for all putative class members and after examining the
interests listed in Rule 23(b)(3)(A-D), this Court finds that a
class action is superior to other methods of adjudicating this
dispute.
For these reasons, this Court hereby certifies the following
Rule 23 settlement class: individuals in the Union’s bargaining
unit who were employed as full-time RIPTA bus operators and worked
at any time between April 24, 2015 and the date of the Settlement
Agreement.

This Court also appoints Division 618, Amalgamated

Transit Union and Kevin Cole, James Thornley, and Tracey Blackledge
4

as class representatives, and appoints Gerard P. Cobleigh of
Cobleigh and Giacobbe, Warwick, RI and Douglas Taylor of Gromfine,
Taylor & Tyler, P.C., Alexandria, VA as class counsel.
B.

The Court Grants Preliminary Certification of the Fair
Labor Standards Act Collective Action

When employees seek certification of a collective action
under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), the employees must demonstrate that they
are similarly situated.

Employees are similarly situated when

they have similar job requirements and pay provisions and there is
some evidence of a common policy or practice that potentially
violates the FLSA. See McKnight v. Honeywell Safety Prods. USA,
Inc., C.A. No. 16-132S, 2017 WL 3447894, at *7 (D.R.I. August 11,
2017). The court must also consider factors such as: the disparate
factual and employment settings, the defenses available to the
defendant which appear to be individual to each plaintiff, and
fairness and procedural considerations.

Additionally, the Court

respects that the requirements for conditional certification of a
FLSA collective action are more lenient than the requirements for
Rule 23 certification.
Here, the Court has already found the Plaintiffs’ action to
be sufficient under Rule 23.

Their action thus also meets the

standard for certifying a FLSA collective action.

Furthermore,

the Plaintiffs are similarly situated because they have the same
job duties and are subject to the same policies for payment of

5

wages for travel time.

Therefore, the Court grants preliminary

certification of the FLSA collective action.
II.

The Court
Settlement

Preliminarily

Approves

the

Parties’

Proposed

The Court finds that the proposed settlement, as set forth in
the parties’ Settlement Agreement (see ECF No. 6-1), appears to be
fair, reasonable, and adequate.
been

entered

into

informed counsel.

at

The settlement appears to have

arm’s-length

by

highly

experienced

and

Also, the factors supporting approval of a Rule

23 settlement of state wage and hour claims may support approval
of a collective action settlement of FLSA claims. Therefore, the
court preliminarily approves the proposed settlement.
III. The Court Finds the Notice to Potential Class Members to be
Adequate
The Court finds the form and content of the proposed Official
Court Notice of Settlement of Class Action (the “Notice”) adequate
to provide notice to all absent class members and potential class
members to enable them to make an intelligent choice as to whether
to opt-in to the FLSA collective action or opt-out of the Rule 23
class action. 1 (See ECF No. 6-2.)
The

Court

dissemination

approves
of

the

the

Notice,

parties’

proposed

requesting

1

schedule

exclusion

from

for
the

Notifying employees of the FLSA’s “opt-in” requirement and Rule
23’s “opt-out” requirement is particularly critical in this
action.
6

Settlement Class or objecting to the settlement, submitting papers
in connection with final approval, the deadline by which claim
forms must be postmarked, and the date of Final Approval Hearing,
as follows:
•

Notice date: no more than fifty (50) days after the entry of
the order preliminarily approving the settlement.

•

Deadline for returning requests for exclusion and filing
objections: twenty-one (21) days prior to the Final Approval
Hearing.

•

Deadline by which claim forms must be postmarked: thirty (30)
days after the Final Approval Hearing.

IV. Final Approval Hearing
A Final Approval Hearing 2 is hereby scheduled for January 4,
2019 at 11:00 a.m., before the undersigned at the Federal Building
and Courthouse, One Exchange Terrace, Providence, Rhode Island
02903, Courtroom 3, to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and
adequacy of the Settlement Agreement, as well as the issue of the
Rule 23 class certification, and the FLSA collective action.
Any member of the class that has not filed a timely request
for exclusion may appear at the final approval hearing in person
or by counsel and may be heard, to the extent allowed by the Court,
either

2

in

support

of

or

in

opposition

to

the

This hearing is sometimes called a “Fairness Hearing.”
7

fairness,

reasonableness,

and

adequacy

of

the

Settlement

Agreement.

However, in order to be heard in opposition to the settlement, a
member must, consistent with deadlines set forth above, file with
the clerk of the court, and serve on Class Counsel and Defendant’s
counsel, a notice of such person’s intention to appear as well as
a statement that indicates the basis for such person’s opposition
to the Settlement Agreement, and any documentation in support of
that opposition.
The date and time of the Final Approval Hearing shall be set
forth in the Notice to potential members, but shall be subject to
adjournment by the Court without further notice to the members of
the class other than that which may be posted at the Court, on the
Court’s website, and on Class Counsel’s website.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: October 10, 2018

8