Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WAGE-HOUR—CLASS ACTIONS—Other litigation developments, (Apr 14, 2025)

By WK Editorial Staff

A roundup of court actions granting conditional certification of FLSA collective and Rule 23 class actions of interest to the labor and employment community.

Truck drivers alleged that their employer misclassified them as independent contractors, made deductions from their pay for insurance, truck cleaning, maintenance, and repairs, and that they regularly drove as much as 70 hours per week; FLSA collective (Shumate v. Forsage, Inc., No. 24 C 931 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 9, 2025)).

Truck drivers brought state-law claims under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act seeking certification of a Rule 23 class in which they alleged the employer shorted their paychecks by making deductions that were not disclosed in their leases and without their consent; Rule 23 class (Stewart v. Interland, Inc., No. 23-cv-3306 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 2025)).

Employees of an assisted living facility alleged that they were expected to work a maximum of 96 hours bi-weekly, with no overtime and that all were subject to the same policies and practices with respect to pay, including the employer's failure to pay them required overtime rate for hours over 40 in a workweek; FLSA collective (Brito v. New Life Healthy Living, LLC, No. ADC-24-01124 (D. Md. Mar. 12, 2025)).

Executive assistants for IBM alleged that the employer maintained a policy of not paying them for off-the-clock overtime work and that it discouraged and retaliated against employees for reporting their true hours worked; FLSA collective (Burgard v. International Business Machines Corp., No. 24-CV-02885 (PMH) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2025)).

Production employees of a food processor alleged that the employer unlawfully failed to pay them for time spent changing into sanitary clothing prior to the start of a shift and at the end of a shift; FLSA collective (Demosthene v. Rosina Food Products, Inc., No. 1:24-CV-225-JLS-MJR (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2025)).

Flowback operators employed by company providing production services to the oil field industry alleged that the employer misclassified them as independent contractors and paid them a flat sum for each day worked, regardless of the number of hours worked, and failed to pay statutorily required overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week; FLSA collective (Palczynsky v. Oil Patch Group, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-01125-DHU-KRS (D.N.M. Mar. 18, 2025)).

Installers and welders for a structural steel company alleged that they regularly worked more than 40 hours in a work week, but the employer structured their paychecks such that they were never properly paid overtime wages; FLSA collective (Conejo v. Sellan Structural Erectors, LLC, No. 1:23-cv-02930-SKC-STV (D. Colo. Mar. 20, 2025)).

Sales representative alleged that the employer misclassified members of a proposed collective, including territorial sales representatives, sales representatives, branch managers, senior branch managers, and assistant area managers as exempt from overtime and they were all improperly denied overtime compensation due to a nationwide corporate policy; FLSA collective (Steahle v. CarGroup Holdings, LLC, No. 24-1447 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 21, 2025)).

Respiratory therapist was granted preliminary FLSA certification in suit alleging that she frequently worked over 40 hours per week and was regularly required to be "on-call" for which the employer would pay a stipend, but she was not paid for work performed while on-call; FLSA collective (Schiller-Egles v. The Promptcare Companies, Inc., No. 23-CV-6790 (KMK) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2025)).

Employee of a health facility was granted a motion for Rule 23 class action certification in a suit alleging that the employer violated state labor laws by failing to include bonus calculations into the rate of pay for time off, and failing to pay all unpaid PTO to employees upon separation; Rule 23 class (Mitchell v. United Health Centers of the San Joaquin Valley, No. 1:23-cv-00060-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal. Mar. 26. 2025)).

Kitchen helper alleged that he and other restaurant employees worked more than 70 hours a week but were paid a flat salary, such that the employer violated the FLSA by failing to pay employees the minimum hourly wage or provide overtime pay; FLSA collective (Guevara-Uravac v. Sushi Ukai, Inc., No. 24 CV 8728 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 26, 2025)).

Utility locators for a company that provided utility locating services were granted a motion to certify a Rule 23 class action alleging that they were not paid fully for all hours they worked while on temporary assignments; Rule 23 Class (Monroe v. Stake Center Locating, LLC, No. 2:23-cv-692 (E.D. Va. Mar. 27, 2025)).

Amazon Flex drivers who worked as last-mile delivery drivers for Amazon were granted a notice to facilitate putative members of a collective; FLSA collective (Rittman v. Amazon, Inc., No. C16-1554-JCC (W.D. Wash. Mar. 27, 2025)).

Trainees for a federal contractor alleged the employer refused to pay overtime wages for time worked in excess of 40 hours per week; FLSA collective (Miller v. Leidos, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-931 (PTG/LRV) (E.D. Va. Mar. 27, 2025)).

Employee alleged that the employer required employees to put on work clothes and protective equipment before they could clock in; FLSA collective (Wilcoxen v. The Chemours Co., No. 1:23-cv-01416-SB (D. Del. Mar. 27, 2025)).

Employees of an industrial linen facility were granted certification of a Rule 23 class action alleging that the employer maintained a policy of denying employees the full 30-minute meal breaks to which they were entitled; Rule 23 class (Smith v. 9W Halo Western OPCO L.P., No. 20-cv-01968-AMO (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2025)).

Field personnel for an oilfield services company alleged the employer paid them on a salary basis without overtime compensation, pursuant to company policy; FLSA collective (Carlson v. Pharoah Energy Services, LLC, No. CIV-23-00802-PRW (W.D. Okla. Mar. 28, 2025)).

Special investigators, who investigate claims of suspected insurance fraud for GEICO, alleged the insurer failed to pay overtime wages for hours worked beyond 40 in a work week; FLSA collective (Fischer v. Government Employees Insurance Company dba GEICO, No. 23-cv-2848 (SJB) (ST) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2025)).

Security guards were granted a motion for certification and notice to collective members alleging that the employer subjected them to illegal pay practices by violating statutory overtime pay requirements; FLSA collective (Aghatise v. Royal Guards Solutions LLC, No. 4:24-cv-102 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2025)).

Lead processing employee for a cable products company alleged the employer failed to pay overtime compensation for time spent donning lead protective gear; FLSA collective (Holmes v. Amercable Co. dba Nexans Amercable, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-01110 (W.D. Ark. Mar. 31, 2025)).

Cases: WageHour ClassActions EmployeeStatus WorkingTime Overtime MinimumWage Exemptions StateLawClaims