Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • LABOR—UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES—NLRB: Employer unlawfully removed work from union subsidiary and transferred it to nonunion subsidiary
    • DISCRIMINATION—7th Cir.: Postal worker, escorted away by police after clash with supervisor, cannot revive claims
    • DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—E.D.N.Y.: Asian airport server’s associational disability bias claim advances but race bias claim fails
    • DOL NEWS—OIG announces developments in two criminal prosecutions
    • EEOC NEWS—Two settlements resolve race, age, disability discrimination cases; new subpoena enforcement action
    • EMPLOYEE LEAVE—N.D. Tex.: Paternity leave may have accelerated planned firing
    • EXPERT INSIGHTS—AI-powered sextortion: A growing threat your workforce needs to know about
    • EXPERT INSIGHTS—One step at a time: Another district court rejects the Lusardi bifurcated discovery and conditional certification approach
    • LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—EEOC urges Third Circuit to revive FedEx worker's ADA claim, argues hemorrhoids can constitute disability
    • LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—Starbucks worker alleges hair-based harassment in federal suit
    • SENATE NEWS—Gallego seeks Senate committee formation on AI risks
    • VITAL BRIEFING—Taking new action against Canadian imports, Trump stokes trade war concerns
    • WAGE-HOUR—CLASS ACTIONS—E.D. Mich.: Automotive manufacturing employees denied court-facilitated FLSA notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs
    • WHISTLEBLOWERS—D.C. Cir.: SEC properly denied award to whistleblower who delayed reporting
    • WORTH NOTING—Cases of note dealing with wage and hour issues
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EXPERT INSIGHTS—One step at a time: Another district court rejects the Lusardi bifurcated discovery and conditional certification approach, (Sep 11, 2026)

    Law Firms Mentioned:Duane Morris
    Organizations Mentioned:Duane Morris, LLP

    By Gerald Maatman, Jr., Michael Rosenblatt and Anna Sheridan of Duane Morris LLP

    Duane Morris Takeaways: On September 3, 2026, in Harris, et al. v. Shoe Show, Inc., No. 3:25-CV-00398 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 3, 2026), Judge Susan C. Rodriguez denied Plaintiffs' pre-discovery motion for conditional certification of an FLSA collective actio ...

    By Gerald Maatman, Jr., Michael Rosenblatt and Anna Sheridan of Duane Morris LLP

    Duane Morris Takeaways: On September 3, 2026, in Harris, et al. v. Shoe Show, Inc., No. 3:25-CV-00398 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 3, 2026), Judge Susan C. Rodriguez denied Plaintiffs' pre-discovery motion for conditional certification of an FLSA collective action and granted Defendant's emergency motion for expedited, single stage discovery. The decision joins the growing trend of courts declining to bifurcate FLSA discovery into conditional certification and post-conditional certification stages.

    Case Background

    Plaintiffs Benjamin Harris and Marticilla Roberts brought suit against Shoe Show, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Stands Act ("FLSA"). According to the Complaint, filed June 11, 2025, Defendant Shoe Show, Inc. allegedly failed to pay store managers for all overtime hours worked. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that they were required to communicate with co-workers and supervisors about work-related matters outside of the store while off-the-clock. The Complaint defined Plaintiffs' proposed FLSA collective action as "all hourly-paid and overtime-eligible Store Managers, who worked over 40 hours in any workweek for Defendant" for the prior three plus years (the alleged lookback period was slightly longer than the typical three years for an FLSA claim due to an alleged tolling agreement).

    On July 25, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a pre-discovery motion for conditional certification of a collective action under FLSA §216(b). On July 28, 2025, Defendant filed a motion to expedite discovery and requested a stay on briefing on Plaintiffs' pre-discovery motion for conditional certification. Defendant's motion stated that Plaintiffs used "boilerplate declarations" that "call[ed] into question their evidentiary value." Defendant also provided declarations from thirty store managers to counter Plaintiffs' claims to demonstrate that their claims "are not commonly shared by the Company's Store Managers."

    The District Court's Ruling

    In a 3-page opinion, Judge Rodriguez denied Plaintiffs' pre-discovery motion for conditional certification and granted Defendant's motion for expedited discovery. The Court was brief in its analysis, citing "the arguments, record, and applicable authority, including the text" of the FLSA. Op. at 1.

    The Court primarily relied on the growing case law revisiting the so-called "two-step process" for certification of FLSA collective actions. Prior to 2021, in what is commonly referred to as the Lusardi approach, courts almost universally applied a two-step process to certification of FLSA collective actions, first requiring a plaintiff to make a modest factual showing that plaintiff was similarly situated to others, followed by a second stage with a more thorough examination of evidence with the benefit of discovery. See Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 118 F.R.D. 351 (D.N.J. 1987). In 2021, the Fifth Circuit in Swales, et al. v. KLLM Transport Services, LLC, 985 F.3d 430, 436 (5th Cir. 2021), rejected the two-step approach for evaluating motions for certification of collective actions, holding that district courts should "rigorously scrutinize the realm of ‘similarly-situated’ workers … at the outset of the case." In 2023, the Sixth Circuit in Clark v. A&L Homecare & Training Center, LLC, 68 F.4th 1003 (6th Cir. 2023), likewise rejected the two-step approach, though introduced a new standard requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate a "strong likelihood" that other employees are "similarly-situated" to the plaintiff.

    Though the Fourth Circuit has yet to weigh in on this issue, Judge Rodriguez cited the Fifth Circuit's approach in Swales, the Sixth Circuit in Clark, and two district court decisions within the Fourth Circuit rejecting bifurcated certification under the FLSA. Op. at 2. See Hubbard v. Southwood Realty Co., No. 3:24-CV-00481, 2026 WL 823169 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 25, 2026); Mathews v. USA Today Sports Media Grp., LLC, 1:22-CV-1407, 2023 WL 3676795 (E.D. Va. Apr. 14, 2023).

    Implications for Companies

    When addressing FLSA collective action claims, corporate counsel should be cautioned against accepting Lusardi's bifurcated approach without pushback and cite to Swales and Clark to slow down a plaintiff's race to conditional certification. After Hubbard, the Harris decision is now the second district court opinion within the Fourth Circuit in 2026 to reject Lusardi and adopt a single, streamlined discovery approach for FLSA certification. While most circuits still use the Lusardi approach, the circuit split created by the Swales (5th Circuit), Clark(6th Circuit), and Richards, et al. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 149 F.4th 901 (7th Cir. 2025), rejecting Lusardi shows that momentum is moving away from bifurcated discovery.

    In the Fourth Circuit in particular, companies can add Harris, in addition to Hubbard and Mathews,to their toolkit to strengthen their arguments against the two-step Lusardi approach. As with any circuit split, this latest trend against bifurcated discovery reinforces how critical it is for companies to understand the approach in the district where they are being sued, but the recent trend away from Lusardi should give companies the impetus in any jurisdiction for arguing against bifurcated discovery and rushing to conditional certification.

    Gerald Maatman, Jr., Michael Rosenblatt and Anna Sheridan

    Duane Morris LLP

    30 S. 17th Street

    Philadelphia

    PA 19103-4196

    United States

    Tel.: +1 215 9791000

    E-mail: solutions@duanemorris.com

    URL: www.duanemorris.com/

    (c) Mondaq Ltd, 2026 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com

    Attorneys: (Duane Morris).

    ExpertInsights: ExpertInsights ClassActions EvidenceDiscovery WageHour LitigationNewsTrends

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use