Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WAGE-HOUR—CLASS ACTIONS—E.D. Mich.: Automotive manufacturing employees denied court-facilitated FLSA notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs, (Sep 11, 2026)

By Steven D. Cole, J.D.

The evidence did not persuasively demonstrate that the alleged FLSA violation constituted a pervasive companywide policy, thereby rendering the potential opt-in plaintiffs not similarly situated to the named plaintiffs.

Afederal district court in Michigan denied a motion to facilitate notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs in a case concerning an alleged violation of the FLSA. The two named plaintiffs who brought this action (employees) claimed that their employer, Autoneum North America, Inc., unlawfully failed to pay its hourly workers overtime compensation for pre- and post-shift work despite being clocked-in and performing mandatory labor. The court concluded that the employees did not show a “strong likelihood” that the potential opt-in plaintiffs—thousands of Autoneum workers across six plants in four different states—were similarly situated for the purpose of receiving notice of the suit. This was primarily because the employees failed to demonstrate that the alleged FLSA violation constituted a pervasive companywide policy, given the different guidelines governing Autoneum’s multiple worksites (Glidwell v. Autoneum North America, Inc., No. 24-cv-12805 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 4, 2026)).

Rounding policy. Autoneum manufactures automobile components in facilities across the United States. Two Autoneum employees—a maintenance technician at a Pennsylvania plant and a mold operator in Ohio—filed this action on behalf of themselves and current and former hourly, non-exempt production/manufacturing employees of Autoneum who were paid for at least 40 hours in any workweek beginning October 24, 2021. The complaint alleges that Autoneum violated the FLSA’s overtime pay provision by way of a companywide policy resulting in workers being underpaid. Specifically, the employees alleged that Autoneum has adopted a “Time Rounding Policy” whereby it compensates workers only for their designated shift time, and not for the time prior to and after their shifts. During this unpaid time, hourly workers are clocked-in and perform mandatory work duties, such as donning and removing personal protective equipment, attending pre-shift meetings, and sometimes working past their shifts until they are relieved by the incoming shift’s workers.

The court previously dismissed the employees’ numerous state law claims on the basis that they predominated over the FLSA claim. Graham v. Autoneum N. Am., Inc., No. 24-cv-12805, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69739 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2026). In this most recent motion, the employees petitioned the court to facilitate notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs at six of Autoneum’s manufacturing plants located in four states. Autoneum opposed the motion.

Similarly situated. The employees’ request required them to demonstrate a “strong likelihood” that the opt-in plaintiffs to whom notice would be sent “are similarly situated to the employees themselves.” Clark v. A&L Homecare and Training Center, LLC, 68 F.4th 1003, 1011 (6th Cir. 2023). To that end, the employees relied upon the declarations of one named plaintiff and five opt-in plaintiffs (declarants) who worked at five different Autoneum plants. All six declarants provided similar statements indicating that Autoneum documented exactly what time their workers clocked in and out, that the workers performed compensable labor for the duration of this time, and that Autoneum intentionally paid them for a lesser amount of time—only their designated shifts—thereby depriving the workers of time-and-a-half overtime compensation. Accordingly, the employees contended that this demonstrated a strong likelihood that other Autoneum employees have experienced the effects of this policy but have not opted in to the action.

Variance in policies. The court was not convinced. First, and most importantly, the fact that each plant listed in the complaint used either a different handbook or set calculation of work hours based on a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) negated the conclusion that the alleged underpayment was attributable to an Autoneum policy that spanned the entire company. Second, the variance in policies that were utilized at the multiple facilities meant that different plaintiffs would be subject to individualized defenses. For instance, the CBAs provided for certain grievance policies which would not be applicable to workers at Autoneum’s non-CBA facilities.

Third, many of the cases upon which the employees relied in support of their notice petition involved more evidence than simply declarations. Fourth, authorizing notice to thousands of workers could effectively force Autoneum into a settlement by expanding the pool of plaintiffs in this case exponentially—a drastic step requiring further evidence that such potential opt-ins were, in fact, similarly situated. Finally, three of the declarations could not be considered on the employees’ motion, as two of the declarants ended their employment with Autoneum prior to the beginning of the notice period, and another was currently an opt-in plaintiff in a different FLSA action based on similar claims against Autoneum (arising from the company’s facility in Oregon, Ohio).

“Without more,” according to Judge White, “the Court is not persuaded that this practice was a pervasive companywide policy such that there is a strong likelihood similarly situated opt-in plaintiffs require notice.” Therefore, the court denied the employees’ motion.

The case is No. 24-cv-12805.

Judge White, R.

Attorneys: Kevin J. Stoops (Sommers Schwartz) for Roger Glidwell, Jr., Amy Kelly and Dante Graham. Elizabeth L. Bolduc (Eastman & Smith) for Autoneum North America, Inc.

Companies: Autoneum North America, Inc.

Cases: WageHour ClassActions WorkingTime Overtime Procedure MichiganNews