Walmart Assistant Managers Denied Class Certification in Overtime Dispute
The judge, applying recent Third Circuit case law, found the plaintiff failed to satisfy the commonality requirement that is one of four prerequisites to class certification.
April 24, 2020 at 04:11 PM
4 minute read
A federal judge in Newark has denied certification to a class of Walmart overnight assistant store managers in New York and New Jersey who claimed they were wrongly declared exempt from overtime pay.
The judge, applying recent case law from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, found the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the commonality requirement that is one of four prerequisites to class certification. U.S. District Judge Madeline Cox Arleo ruled that the plaintiffs satisfied the other three prerequisites—numerosity, typicality and adequacy of representation.
In a victory for Walmart's attorneys at Greenberg Traurig, Arleo denied certifying the managers, who generally are scheduled for four, 12-hour shifts per week supervising hourly workers. The suit claimed "rampant understaffing" and "aggressive restrictions on overtime labor costs" at the retailer's stores meant they perform mostly nonmanagerial duties such as stocking shelves. As such, they claimed they are misclassified and are entitled to overtime under state wage-and-hour laws, the suit claimed.
Marc Hepworth of Hepworth, Gershbaum & Roth in New York, who represented the plaintiffs, did not respond to requests for comment. Wendy Johnson Lario and Kristine Feher of Greenberg Traurig in Florham Park, representing Walmart, also did not respond to requests for comment.
A Walmart spokesman, Randy Hargrove, said in a statement, "We are pleased the Court determined that this case is not appropriate for class treatment. We take compliance with the law seriously and have processes in place to make sure our associates are correctly compensated."
In finding the plaintiffs failed to make a showing of commonality, which requires that plaintiffs share at least one question of fact or law with the grievances of the prospective class, Arleo noted that plaintiffs' court papers cited testimony of potential class members who said their primary duties involved loading trucks, operating forklifts, stocking shelves and sweeping.
But lawyers for Walmart submitted declarations from other overnight assistant managers who said their main duties involved supervising the store and managing associates. The record, Arleo said, also reveals major differences in the ability of overnight assistant managers to hire, fire and promote employees, the judge said. Some never interviewed prospective hires, while others interviewed candidates but could not hire them, and still others had more discretion in the hiring process.
"As overnight ASM duties can vary significantly, the court would need to conduct individualized, rather than class-wide, proceedings to determine each overnight ASM's exemption status," Arleo said.
In court papers arguing that common issues predominate, the plaintiffs relied on a 2018 District of New Jersey case, Ferreras v. American Airlines, granting certification in a wage-and-hour case involving hourly airline employees. But that decision was reversed by the Third Circuit in December 2019, after the plaintiffs filed their motion. The appeals court said the airline employees would have to offer individual proof to establish their claims, Arleo said.
"The Third Circuit concluded that the Ferreras plaintiffs had not demonstrated predominance because, like here, they would need to offer individualized proof to establish their claims," Arleo said.
The plaintiffs argued that the assistant managers' statements about their job duties cited by Walmart conflicted with testimony by those individuals in depositions, but Arleo rejected the plaintiffs' claims, saying "the record does not fully support plaintiffs' characterization of the evidence."
Walmart has approximately 100 stores in New York and 63 in New Jersey, each with somewhere between four and 15 assistant managers. They are paid a fixed, annual salary.
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 AllAmazon's Audible Hit With Privacy Class Action Over Use of Tracking Pixels
NJ Workers Can't Sue for Alleged Employment Discrimination Over Marijuana Use, 3rd Circuit Rules
4 minute read'A Mockery' of Deposition Rules: Walgreens Wins Sanctions Dispute Over Corporate Witness Allegedly Unfamiliar With Company
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Advising 'Capital-Intensive Spaces' Fuels Corporate Practice Growth For Haynes and Boone
- 2Big Law’s Year—as Told in Commentaries
- 3Pa. Hospital Agrees to $16M Settlement Following High Schooler's Improper Discharge
- 4Connecticut Movers: Year-End Promotions, Hires and an Office Opening
- 5Luigi Mangione Defense Attorney Says NYC Mayor’s Comments on Case Raise Fair Trial Concerns
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