United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
TRAVIS L. KINDER, et al., Plaintiffs,
MAC MANUFACTURING INC. et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND [RESOLVING ECF NO.
Y. PEARSON JUDGE
before the Court is Plaintiff Travis L. Kinder's Motion
for Conditional Certification, Expedited Opt-in Discovery,
and Court-Supervised Notice to Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs.
ECF No. 11. Defendants MAC Manufacturing Inc. and
MAC Trailer Enterprises, Inc. (collectively
“Defendants”) have filed a response in
opposition. ECF No. 17. Plaintiff replied. ECF
No. 21-3. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's
motion (ECF No. 11) is granted.
are corporations that manufacture trailers for the trucking
industry. ECF No. 17 at PageID#:133. Plaintiff was
employed by Defendants as a welder between January 30, 2017
and June 26, 2017. ECF No. 3 at PageID#: 24.
filed this action, alleging that Defendants failed to
compensate him and other similarly situated employees for all
time worked and overtime wages, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C.
§§ 201 219, and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wages
Standard Act, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4111.03.
Id. at PageID#: 22 23, ¶¶ 1 2. Plaintiff
claims that Defendants required him and other hourly
non-exempt employees to perform work before their scheduled
start time and after their scheduled stop time, which
included the following duties: changing into and out of
personal protective equipment, obtaining and putting away
tools necessary to perform their job, logging into Defendant
MAC Trailer's computer systems to obtain work, performing
production work, cleaning up production areas, and walking to
and from the assigned area of the production floor. Id.
at PageID#: 24 25. Plaintiff asserts that, because
Defendants did not compensate him and other similarly
situated employees for the work completed before and after
scheduled shifts at a rate of one and one-half times their
regular pay, Defendants violated the FLSA. Id. at
now moves the Court to authorize him to notify similarly
situated employees of this lawsuit pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
§ 216(b). ECF No. 11.
Law & Analysis
Conditional Class Certification
the FLSA, one or more employees may bring an action against
an employer “for and in behalf of himself and other
employees similarly situated.” Albright v. Gen. Die
Casters, Inc., No. 5:10-cv-480, 2010 WL 6121689, at *1
(N.D. Ohio July 14, 2010) (citing 29 U.S.C. §
216(b)) (internal quotations omitted). “No
employee shall be a party plaintiff to any such action unless
he gives his consent in writing to become such a party and
such consent is filed in the court in which such action is
plaintiff alleging a FLSA violation on behalf of other
employees similarly situated must meet two requirements: (1)
the plaintiffs must actually be similarly situated; and (2)
all plaintiffs must signal in writing their affirmative
consent to participate in the action. Comer v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., 454 F.3d 544, 54546 (6th Cir. 2006).
Unlike a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23
representative action, in which a putative plaintiff has the
opportunity to opt-out of the class, plaintiffs brought into
a collective action under the FLSA must affirmatively opt-in
to the class. Id.
generally take a two-stage approach to collective actions.
Id. at 546. According to the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals, “[t]he first takes place at the beginning of
discovery [and] [t]he second occurs after all the opt-in
forms have been received and discovery has concluded.”
Id. (citing Goldman v. RadioShack Corp.,
2003 WL 21250571, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 17, 2003)). When a
plaintiff is seeking conditional certification at the
beginning of discovery, which is also known as the notice
stage, a plaintiff must make a “modest factual
showing” and must show “only that his position is
similar, not identical, to the positions held by the putative
class members.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 454
F.3d at 546 47. The modest factual showing must also be
sufficient to “demonstrate that they and potential
plaintiffs together were victims of a common policy or plan
that violated the law.” Id. (quoting
Roebuck v. Hudson Valley Farms, Inc., 239 F.Supp.2d
234, 238 (N.D.N.Y 2002)).
instant case, Plaintiff seeks to certify the following class:
All former and current welders of Defendants MAC Trailer
Enterprises, Inc. and MAC Manufacturing Inc. between July ...