Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WAGE-HOUR—CLASS ACTIONS—W.D. Pa.: Recruiters for placement firm granted final certification of FLSA collective and four state-law class actions, (Mar 11, 2025)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

The court pointed out that the evidence showed the named plaintiffs and the collective share many similarities regarding their particular job duties and day-to-day work.

A federal district court in Pennsylvania granted motions filed by employees to certify an FLSA collective action and four proposed state-law class actions in accordance with Rules 23(a) and (b)(3). Recruiters for a technology placement firm alleged that the employer classified all of its recruiters as exempt for overtime requirements and failed to pay them overtime wages. In this instance, the court determined that various factors, including their employment settings, similarity of claims, similar compensation structures, mandatory training policies, uniform job duties, and identical production quotas warranted final certification of the collective action (Thomas v. TEKsystems, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-460 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 10, 2025)).

Overtime claims. Recruiters for a technology placement firm brought an FLSA collective action alleging that the employer failed to pay employees overtime wages. The recruiters also brought various class actions under Rule 23 alleging that the employer failed to pay overtime under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, failed to pay overtime wages, meal and rest breaks under Washington state law, failed to pay overtime wages under New York state law, as well as failed to provide statutorily required wage notices and wage statements, and failed to pay overtime wages under Massachusetts state laws.

After the close of discovery, the employees filed a motion seeking final FLSA collective action certification. They also filed a motion to certify four state-law classes under Rule 23.

The employer, which provides its customers with workers with specialized skills, used the recruiters to identify potential candidates who meet the requirements for an open position with one of its customers. When recruiters begin with the employer, they are classified as trainees and remain in that position until they have completed all required training and demonstrate their ability to perform the duties of a recruiter. Trainees are paid overtime wages if they work over 40 hours in per week. On the other hand, recruiters are classified as exempt from state and federal overtime wage requirements and were not paid overtime wages when they worked over 40 hours in a workweek. They are expected to work 45-60 hours per week.

Work role. The parties disputed the role of recruiters and the employer’s expectations of them. According to the recruiters they work in a producing role, such that their primary duty is to screen and match IT job candidates for open roles with the employer’s customers. For its part, the employer countered that it reasonably expects recruiters to do more than “rote screening and matching.” Thus, the parties disputed whether recruiters were more akin to personnel clerks or whether their work is more involved and required independent judgment and initiative. The parties also disputed whether recruiters are entry-level employees.

Collective action certification. “With the benefit of discovery,” the district court “makes a conclusive determination as to whether each plaintiff who has opted into the collective action is in fact similarly situated to the named plaintiff.” In determining whether individuals are similarly situated at the second stage of the litigation, the Third Circuit has adopted an ad hoc approach requiring consideration of all relevant factors and a factual determination on a case-by-case basis. Being similarly situated means that one is subjected to some common employer practice that, if proved, would help demonstrate a violation of the FLSA.

Employment settings. According to the recruiters, their employment settings favored certification because they are “unified” under “one structure” as part of the employer’s talent delivery team. Further, they “share the same job title, primary job duties, have the same training, are evaluated by the same production metrics, and work in the same department.” The court agreed that although recruiters worked in various locations spread across 38 states, the similarity of their work, duties, and training weighed in favor of certification.

Similar claims. Next, the recruiters contended that members of the collective advanced similar claims and sought the same type of monetary relief for their FLSA claims. While the employer did not dispute that the recruiters advanced the same claims, it countered that for the 109 members of the collective, their claims were “uniquely distinct” because the dates of their employment required them to show that it willfully misclassified them as exempt from overtime requirements. Nevertheless, the court held that because the named plaintiffs and members of the collective brought identical claims, and sought uniform relief, this factor weighed in favor of certification.

Circumstances of employment and salary. Additionally, the recruiters contended that all members of the collective shared a similar compensation structure, a standardized payroll system, mandatory training policies, uniform job duties and expectations, and identical production quotas. Here, the court determined that because the recruiters have identical primary job duties and are subject to one common employment practice (being classified as exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirements), such similarities among the collective were sufficient to establish that they were “subjected to some common employer practice that, if proved, would help demonstrate a violation of the FLSA.” Thus, this factor also weighed in favor of finding that the opt-in plaintiffs were similarly situated.

Individualized defenses. According to the recruiters, a single uniform defense applies to the entire collective—that they are administratively exempt from the FLSA overtime requirements. On the other hand, the employer contended that it classifies its recruiters as exempt from the overtime requirements pursuant to the FLSA’s administrative and/or highly compensated employee exemptions.

Here, the court pointed out that the evidence showed that named plaintiffs and the collective share many similarities regarding their particular job duties and day-to-day work. Thus, it concluded that the employer’s defenses were not so individually tailored to each recruiter as to make the collective action unwarranted or unmanageable. In addition, the recruiters’ evidence established that the employer uniformly exempted all recruiters from the FLSA’s overtime wage requirements and was not apparently based on any individual factors. Accordingly, the court held that the employer’s exemptions defenses can be litigated on a collective basis.

Fairness and procedural considerations. Finally, the court determined that fairness and procedural considerations weighed in favor of final certification, including considerations of judicial economy. Fairness and procedural considerations counsel in favor of certifying the recruiters’ collective action to allow for a mass resolution of their claims such that hundreds of individual lawsuits asserting almost identical FLSA claims are unnecessary for plaintiffs to obtain relief. The named plaintiffs and members of the collective are similarly situated, a trial based on representative evidence will be coherent and will not confuse a jury, and certifying this litigation, involving the employer’s uniform classification of recruiters as exempt, as a collective action honors Congress’s intent in authorizing FLSA collective actions.

The case is No. 2:21-cv-460.

Judge: Stickman, W., IV.

Attorneys: Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen (Lichten & Liss-Riordan) for Michael Thomas. Andrew Scroggins (Seyfarth Shaw) for TEKsystems, Inc.

Companies: TEKsystems, Inc.

Cases: WageHour ClassActions Overtime Exemptions EvidenceDiscovery StateLawClaims PennsylvaniaNews