Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Cases of note dealing with wage and hour issues, (Apr 18, 2025)

By WK Editorial Staff

A roundup of recent decisions involving wage and hour issues of interest to the labor and employment community.

D. Conn.: Renewed class certification motion failed to satisfy numerosity requirement. A group of home care workers sued two home care services companies alleging claims under the FLSA and Connecticut Minimum Wage Act and sought class certification under Rule 23. Twice previously the employees had been denied certification due to insufficient evidence of numerosity. The employees argued that they met Rule 23’s numerosity requirement, stating that there was a “mathematical probability that the number of class members is higher than the presumptive threshold.” The employers contended that the employees presented no new factual or legal arguments, and failed to “offer a different class definition,” and requested costs for what they deemed a frivolous motion. The court agreed with the employers, finding that the employees failed to provide “new and material information that would justify a different result,” and denied the motion for class certification. However, the court declined to award costs (Savinova v. Nova Home Care, LLC, No. 3:20-cv-01612 (TOF) (D. Conn. Apr. 7, 2025)).

D. Conn.: Court rejects make-up policy for home care assistant’s sleep interruptions. A former personal care assistant (PCAs) working for a home care services company who worked 24-hour shifts alleged that she was often required to work during her designated sleeping periods due to her client’s needs and was instructed to make up lost sleep time without compensation. She sued the employer and its owner alleging violations of the FLSA and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act (CMWA), which mandate compensation for interruptions during bona fide sleeping periods. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court found for the employee on the make-up policy claim, finding that under both federal law and Connecticut law, interruptions must be counted as hours worked. Additionally, the court determined that the owner of the company was an “employer” under the CMWA. However, the court granted partial summary judgment for the employer, finding that the “regularly scheduled” sleeping period did not need to be set by the employer, and that whether an extra 45-minute break could be excluded from a PCA’s hours “turn[ed] not on the formality of what the period is called, but on the functionality of how it is used” (Headly v. Liberty Homecare Options, LLC, No. 3:20-cv-00579-OAW (D. Conn. Mar. 29, 2025)).

E.D. Cal.: Court grants preliminary approval for $2 million settlement, certifies class in wage dispute. A non-exempt automobile mechanic brought a putative class action against his employer and associated entities claiming failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, and failure to provide adequate rest and meal periods, among other things, in violation of the FLSA, California Labor Code, and California’s Unfair Competition Law. The parties reached a settlement agreement, and the mechanic moved for preliminary approval of the class action settlement. The court, after reviewing the motion and the terms of the proposed settlement, granted preliminary approval, finding the settlement “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” The settlement includes a non-reversionary gross amount of $2,000,000, with deductions for a class representative payment of $55,375, attorney fees of $666,667, litigation costs of $50,000, and a PAGA payment of $100,000, resulting in a net settlement fund of $1,141,958 to be distributed pro rata among approximately 800 class members. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, provisionally certified the class for settlement purposes, appointed the class representative and counsel, and approved the settlement administrator (Rojas-Cifuentes v. ACX Pacific Northwest Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00697-CKD (E.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2025)).

E.D. La.: Employee failed to show prospective class members were similarly situated. A home care giver filed a collective action against her employer alleging that the company failed to pay overtime to home care workers—who were classified by the employer as independent contractors—despite their working over 40 hours per week, in violation of the FLSA. The home care giver moved to certify a collective action, noting that “[she] and the proposed class members were subjected to identical policies and procedures,” and that “one prospective class member…already decided to join [the] lawsuit.” However, the court found that the home care giver failed to “demonstrate that the several factors of the economic-realities test could be applied on a class-wide basis,” and “failed to demonstrate that the [home care givers] are similarly situated with respect to the employer-relationship element of their FLSA claim.” Additionally, the court noted that individualized defenses related to unauthorized trips and “individualized determinations” required to compute hours worked further complicated collective resolution. The court denied the motion (Valdery-Hughes v. Care and Development Center, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-01708-LMA-MBN (E.D. La. Apr. 9, 2025)).

E.D.N.Y.: Employees failed to show they were similarly situated to proposed FLSA collective. Junior managers who worked at Costco between 2020 and 2022 sued the employer alleging they were misclassified as overtime-exempt employees, despite regularly working more than 40 hours per week, in violation of the FLSA and New York Labor Law (NYLL). They moved for certification of a collective action under the FLSA. The court, however, denied the motion, finding that the individuals failed to provide sufficient factual evidence demonstrating that other junior managers were similarly misclassified. The court found that the junior managers had “failed to make the modest factual showing required for conditional certification,” and failed to provide “enough factual support that other [j]unior [m]anagers’ overtime-exempt status is a misclassification.” The junior managers failed to include details showing that they were “similarly situated to the proposed FLSA Collective members.” Accordingly, the motion was denied (Lock v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, No. 2:23-cv-07904-SJB-ST (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2025)).

Cases: WageHour Overtime ClassActions WorkingTime MinimumWage EmployeeStatus Exemptions StateLawClaims RemediesDamages