In the recent decision of Wang v. Hearst Corporation, 2012 WL 2864524, the Court denied the defendant-employer’s motion to strike the class and collective action allegations made by the plaintiff-employees and granted the plaintiff’s cross-motion for conditional certification and court-authorized notice to potential class members pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §216(b).
Plaintiff’s proposed class consisted of interns who worked at 19 magazines, owned and operated by defendant, performing tasks necessary to the employer’s operations such as answering phones, making deliveries, and organizing clothing and accessories. The plaintiff proposed to break down the employees into two classes: “(1) an Intern Class comprised of unpaid and underpaid interns, and (2) a Deductions Class comprised of interns who received college credit for their internships.” Plaintiff claimed that defendant violated the FLSA and the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) requirements and provisions pertaining to minimum wage, overtime, record keeping, spread-of-hours pay (requirement under the NYLL that employees must be paid an additional one hour’s pay at minimum wage for each day during which they work more than 10 hours), and unlawful deductions.
The Court noted that under the FLSA, an action may be brought by any one employee for and on behalf of herself and other employees who are “similarly situated.” Furthermore, the Court noted that at this point in the lawsuit, plaintiff only needs to prove that the potential class members “may be similarly situated.” This is done by making a “modest factual showing” that herself and the other potential class members were victims of the same policies or plans (required by defendant’s) that violated the law. At this point in a case, a court only needs to consider a plaintiff’s pleadings and affidavits, without taking the merits of the underlying claims into consideration. This Court found that the allegations and affidavits provided by plaintiff were enough to satisfy the “similarly situated” burden. Specifically, the Court pointed to defendant’s “uniform determination that [all] interns were not employees,” defendant’s requirement that “all interns submit college credit letters,” and defendant’s consistent usage of all “interns to perform entry-level work with little supervision.” However, the Court determined that during the discovery period, a more “stringent factual determination” as to whether the lawsuit should continue as a class action, can be made.
Under the NYLL, class allegations are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Produce (“FRCP”) 23. Under these rules, motions to strike, particularly motions to strike class actions, are disfavored because such a motion forces a court to make a judgment on the class aspects of litigation before plaintiff’s can complete their discovery. Moreover, motions to strike are “usually denied where they raise arguments that would be considered on a motion for class certification.” This Court held that plaintiff’s potential NYLL class could not be certified yet since the requirements were not met. However, the Court also held that the motion to strike the class allegations under the NYLL is premature since only a small amount of discovery has occurred so far. Thus, the Court effectively denied the motion to strike the class at this beginning stage of the case, but retained the authority to grant such a motion after ample discovery by both parties takes place.