Recently, a Magistrate Judge for the United States District Court Eastern District of New York denied Defendants’ motion for class decertification in the case of Ravenell v. Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC. Plaintiffs, shift managers employed by “Avis Rent a Car”, filed a collective action lawsuit to challenge their classification as exempt under the FLSA administrative and executive exemption, and to recover overtime compensation. While the class was previously conditionally certified as a collective action, Defendants sought to seek decertification after the discovery period ended. At that point in the trial, the Court has a fuller record, which allows it to make a more knowledgeable decision as to the need for class certification.
In a motion for decertification, the court will look at three factors to see whether class certification was justified: (1) the disparate factors and employment settings of the individual Plaintiffs; (2) the defenses available to defendants which appear to be individual to each Plaintiff; and (3) fairness and procedural considerations counseling for or against collective action treatment. In regards to the first factor, Plaintiffs sought to prove that the representative Plaintiffs were similarly situated to the Plaintiff class, and that their exemption status could be determined on a class wide basis. Plaintiffs provided evidence showing that Defendants held similar, universal expectations from employees in regards to how they treated customers and provided services. They all had to dress the same, undergo the same training, and all had similar duties, regardless of the Avis location that they worked at or the experience that they had. This claim was further corroborated by Defendants documents, which described the basic duties of shift managers. Further, the court found that the small discrepancies in job duties alleged by Defendants paled in comparison to the similarities. The scope of authority and discretion was also much more similar than different among class members and Defendants acknowledged that the majority of Plaintiffs’ job duties consisted of similar, non-exempt work such as cleaning and moving cars.
As for the other two factors, the court found that they similarly tilted in favor of class certification. The court held that Defendants’ defenses were similar due to the fact that Plaintiffs’ employment situations were so similar. Further, they found that fairness and procedural considerations were satisfied because collective actions lower costs for Plaintiffs through the pooling of resources and limits the controversy to one proceeding which effectively resolves common issues of fact and law deriving from the same alleged activity.
The NYC employment lawyers at Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP have recovered millions of dollars for its clients through class action and collective action lawsuits. If you believe that you have been misclassified as exempt, or have any questions pertaining to your exemption status, please contact us at (212) 300-0375 or visit our website at www.fslawfirm.com.