Wawa Assistant Managers' Lawsuit for OT Pay Gets Federal Judge's Conditional OK
A federal judge in Trenton granted conditional certification Thursday in a collective action against convenience store operator Wawa on behalf of assistant general managers on claims that they were wrongly denied overtime pay.
January 11, 2018 at 05:03 PM
4 minute read
A federal judge in Trenton, New Jersey, granted conditional certification Thursday in a collective action against convenience store operator Wawa on behalf of assistant general managers on claims that they were wrongly denied overtime pay.
U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan ruled that plaintiffs met the ”lenient burden” for conditional certification of a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. He cited statements by the four named plaintiffs that they routinely work 50 to 60 hours per week and spend nearly all their time on nonmanagerial duties such as making sandwiches and operating cash registers.
But the ruling also limits the claim to roughly one year before Wawa's December 2015 decision reclassifying assistant general managers as nonexempt employees, instead of the two years sought by the plaintiffs.
The award of conditional certification allows the plaintiffs to send court-approved notices to employees, who become parties to the collective action by filing opt-in notices with the court. Conditional certification also gives the parties the right to conduct discovery.
Wawa reclassified assistant general managers as nonexempt from overtime pay in December 2015 but the suit seeks to recover unpaid overtime on behalf of current and former employees at the company's stores in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Maryland before the policy was changed.
Plaintiffs sought a notice period dating back three years from the filing of the complaint, which would make the notice period run from Jan. 12, 2014, to Dec. 28, 2015, the day the policy was changed. But Sheridan sided with Wawa, which said the notice period dated back three years from the conditional certification order, Jan. 11, 2015. As a result, the notice period runs from Jan. 11, 2015 to Dec. 28, 2015.
Wawa claimed the named plaintiffs misrepresented their own job responsibilities and that they were not representative of all assistant general managers in the company. The company also asserted that some of the named plaintiffs were terminated for poor performance. In addition, the company asserted that duties for assistant general managers varied widely based on their experience level, their bosses' preferences and the size and location of the store.
Sheridan rejected the plaintiffs' bid for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations, finding that nothing in the record suggests the company misled or intimidated its employees to interfere with their rights to seek redress.
Sheridan also rejected the suggestion by Wawa's counsel to limit the notice to the 15 locations where the six named plaintiffs have worked during their careers with the company. The judge found that the plaintiffs demonstrated that the allegations they raised are representative of the entire class.
The assistant general managers' suit was filed in January 2017. Wawa also faces a similar suit filed in July 2017 on behalf of a class of general managers in training. That case is in discovery, but no certification has been granted.
In addition to the six named plaintiffs, another six assistant general managers have agreed to participate in the case as opt-in plaintiffs. Wawa has said that the notice provision in the case will include 1,550 assistant general managers.
The plaintiffs' lawyers, Marc Hepworth of Hepworth, Gershbaum & Roth in New York and Union, and New Jersey solo practitioner Joseph Monaco III, did not return calls. Monaco also filed the manager-in-training suit.
Michael Puma at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius in Philadelphia, who represented Wawa, did not return a call.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDispute Over Failure to Accommodate Disability Ends in $900K Settlement
3 minute readInsurer Has No Duty to Defend 'Laidlow' Claims, NJ Supreme Court Says
3 minute readNJ Workers Can't Sue for Alleged Employment Discrimination Over Marijuana Use, 3rd Circuit Rules
4 minute readUnion Leader Awarded $662K Judgment Against Employer in Decade-Old Wiretap Suit
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Administrative Court Finds Prevailing Wage Law Applies to Workers Who Cleaned NYC Subways During Pandemic
- 2Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 3Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
- 4'Almost an Arms Race': California Law Firms Scooped Up Lateral Talent by the Handful in 2024
- 5Pittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250