DocketNumber: CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:18-CV-4
Citation Numbers: 366 F. Supp. 3d 847
Filed Date: 4/3/2019
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/25/2022
Micaela Alvarez, United States District Judge *850Pending before the Court is the motion for conditional certification
After considering the motion, the record, and the relevant authorities, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion as follows.
I. BACKGROUND
This is a Fair Labor Standards Act,
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from March 2014 to August 2016 at its facility in McAllen, Texas.
After filing, four other plaintiffs ("Opt-in Plaintiffs") filed written consent forms opting into the case.
This Court held a scheduling conference with the parties during which Plaintiff indicated that she would seek conditional certification of a collective class of all therapists who had worked for Defendant at all locations since 2015, and therefore, that the potential opt-in class could encompass up to one thousand employees.
In accordance with the scheduling order, Plaintiff timely filed a motion to conditionally certify a collective class of all therapists in five different positions who have worked for Defendant at any time since March 8, 2015.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
The FLSA requires covered employers to compensate non-exempt employees at overtime rates when they work in excess of the statutorily defined maximum number of hours.
This Court has already determined that the "two-step" method developed in Lusardi v. Xerox Corporation , is appropriate in this case.
At this stage, the notice stage, district courts have broad discretion in determining whether to order court-supervised notice to prospective plaintiffs.
The court should satisfy itself that the potential plaintiffs are similarly situated with respect to their job requirements and pay provisions.
*853A court may deny conditional certification if the action arises from "circumstances purely personal to the plaintiff, and not from any generally applicable rule, policy, or practice."
III. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff requests the court conditionally certify all therapists working for Defendant, approximately 1,000 individuals, as a collective class under the FLSA.
all therapists (i.e. , [SLPs], [PTs], [PTAs], [OTs], [COTAs] ) who have been employed by Defendant at any time since March 2015 at any of Defendant's skilled nursing facilities in the state of Texas.43
Plaintiff also requests the Court order Defendant to produce a list of all collective members, including names and last known addresses, and authorize notice to these collective members via U.S. mail and email.
Plaintiff argues that the large collective class is appropriate because a uniform productivity requirement makes off-the-clock work inevitable for all the positions at all of Defendant's facilities.
While denying the merits of Plaintiff's claims, Defendant argues that even if conditional certification were warranted for the McAllen and Pharr locations, it would not be warranted for Defendant's other facilities in Texas. Defendant argues that no Plaintiff works outside of McAllen and Pharr and thus Plaintiff's allegations amount to the individualized claims of Plaintiff and Opt-in Plaintiffs, all of whom worked closely together and reported to the same supervisors.
*854To determine whether conditional certification is appropriate, the Court will first consider the evidence provided by Plaintiff and then analyze whether that evidence satisfies Plaintiff's burden of demonstrating the putative class members were victims of a single policy such that moving forward as a collective class is in the interest of judicial economy.
a. Factual Evidence
Plaintiff argues that the productivity requirement set by Defendant, combined with the threat of discipline for failing to meet productivity goals, led to regular off-the-clock work at all of Defendant's facilities. In addition, Plaintiff argues that members of management for Defendant knew or encouraged these practices, or at the least, should have known off-the-clock work was occurring. The Court will consider the evidence provided regarding each.
i. Productivity Requirement
Each employee of Defendant self-reports his or her hours, clocking in and out via a computer program that tracks time worked and productivity.
All of Defendant's Texas facilities have a 90% productivity expectation,
The rules regarding which activities are billable are "the same for each discipline at each facility."
Non-billable work could include things such as conferring with nursing staff, completing paperwork, team meetings, and conferring with family members.
ii. Discipline for Failing to Meet Productivity Requirements
Plaintiff contends that therapists who did not meet productivity goals were subject to disciplinary procedures. Plaintiff argues therapists were "constantly reminded of their productivity requirements."
In addition, Plaintiff provides testimonial and documentary evidence that therapists could be subject to disciplinary procedures for failing to meet productivity goals. Plaintiff received a written disciplinary "Corrective Action Record" for failing to meet productivity requirements.
Additionally, Opt-in Plaintiff Silva testified she was disciplined for failing to meet productivity requirements, among other things.
iii. Regular Off-the-Clock Work at McAllen Nursing and Colonial Manor
Plaintiff contends that the result of the productivity requirements was routine off-the-clock *856work and provides evidence regarding the experience of Plaintiff and Opt-in Plaintiffs at the McAllen Nursing and Colonial Manner locations. Plaintiff acknowledges that off-the-clock work is against Defendant's official policy,
In support of this allegation, Plaintiff and all four Opt-in Plaintiffs each testify they worked off-the-clock in order to meet the productivity requirements.
Plaintiff further provides the testimony of Opt-in Plaintiffs Campbell, McNames, Garcia, and Silva, who all testify that the former Director of the McAllen facility, Maurice Caceres ("Caceres") told them to alter their own time sheets-or altered their time records for them-to meet productivity requirements.
iv. Regular Off-the-Clock Work at Defendant's Other Locations
Plaintiff provides evidence that similar off-the-clock work was regularly occurring at Defendant's other facilities in Texas. Plaintiff argues that Defendant's productivity records show that "therapists at [Defendant's] facilities throughout Texas routinely billed more time for therapy services than the company recorded as on-the-clock time."
Plaintiff provides examples of Defendant's official productivity reports from five different months between 2015-2017.
The monthly averages provided to the Court show numerous therapists at facilities *857across Texas reporting average productivity numbers in excess of 100%.
Plaintiff acknowledges that one legitimate cause of productivity in excess of 100% is an efficiency technique called "layering of modalities."
However, Plaintiff argues that layering modalities is not the most likely explanation of the productivity records in excess of 100%. In support, Plaintiff points to testimony that this technique only applies to Medicare Part B patients.
v. Management Knew or Should Have Known About Off-the-Clock Work
Plaintiff argues that off-clock-work was occurring regularly throughout Defendant's locations and that Defendant "turned a blind eye" to the practice. Plaintiff argues that Defendant knew, or should have known, that off-the-clock work was occurring on a regular basis.
Plaintiff points to the testimony regarding the actions of Caceres, who, as previously explained, ordered Plaintiff and Opt-in Plaintiffs to alter their time sheets or to work off-the-clock.
Plaintiff argues that even if Defendant did not have actual knowledge of off-the-clock work, they should have known that it was occurring. Plaintiff argues that members of Defendant's management acknowledged off-the-clock work could explain productivity numbers in excess of 100% and that productivity numbers above 100% should be investigated, but that Defendant had failed to investigate whether this was the case. Specifically, the Regional Director for McAllen and Pharr testified that monthly productivity numbers in excess of 100% should be something that a manager would "typically want to drill down into."
b. Analysis
The Court finds that Plaintiff has provided "substantial allegations that the putative class members were together the victims of a single decision, policy, or plan."
First, Plaintiff has provided evidence that all five job descriptions are "similarly situated" such that certifying a collective action is appropriate.
Although each job provides different therapy techniques, each job provides therapy to patients, the billing practices are generally the same for each, and each is required to log that information. Similarly, although the assistant positions, PTAs and COTAs, may have greater ease in satisfying the productivity requirement, these positions are still subject to the same productivity requirement. Thus, they are subject to the same time pressures. For the purposes of notice, they are therefore similarly situated.
Plaintiff has provided evidence that the result of these policies is regular off-the-clock work. Plaintiff and Opt-in Plaintiffs regularly worked off-the-clock to meet productivity requirements, and at least one Director, Caceres, altered, or ordered employees to alter, time sheets such that the employee would not be paid for time worked.
Plaintiff also provides a reasonable basis to conclude that "the same policy applies to multiple locations of a single company."
Defendant contends that even if Plaintiff can establish a pattern of off-the-clock work at Defendant's facilities in McAllen and Pharr, Plaintiff has not provided sufficient evidence to establish a collective class as to Defendant's other facilities.
Defendant's arguments are insufficient. the Plaintiff correctly points out that *860while the efficiency techniques indicated by Defendant make it easier to meet productivity goals, they would not lead to productivity numbers in excess of 100%.
The Court notes that Defendant could be correct, and the productivity numbers in excess of 100% could be caused by layering modalities or error, but Plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence that these numbers could also indicate regular off the clock work. Defendant provides no evidence this is not the case.
Specifically, there is no evidence in the record indicating how many Medicare Part B patients Defendant services, and, thus, the impact that layering modalities may have on productivity numbers. Defendant points to a declaration by Defendant's Chief Operating Officer that "Medicare Part A patients typically make up the smallest percentage of Defendant's patients. Most of [Defendant's] patients are Medicare Part B, Medicaid or facility-funded."
Defendant further admits it has not investigated to determine regular off-the-clock work explains the productivity numbers in excess of 100%.
Plaintiff, at this stage, need not provide evidence that off-the-clock work was actually occurring, but merely must provide substantial allegations that there is a collective class of individuals similarly situated to Plaintiff.
all therapists (i.e. , [SLPs], [PTs], [PTAs], [OTs], [COTAs] ) who have been employed by Defendant at any time since March 8, 2015 at any of Defendant's skilled nursing facilities in the state of Texas.128
The Court will now provide the scheduling deadlines for the case moving forward.
c. Phase II Scheduling Deadlines
Because the Court has conditionally certified Plaintiff's proposed collective class, the Court now sets the following deadlines, as indicated in the previous scheduling order:
• Within fourteen days of this Order, Defendant must provide to Plaintiff a listing of all speech language pathologists, physical therapists, physical therapist assistants, occupational therapists, and certified occupational therapists who have been employed by Defendant at any time since March 8, 2015 at any of Defendant's skilled nursing facilities in the state of Texas. Such list shall include the name, last known mailing address, last known email address, and last known telephone number.
• The parties must submit to the Court: (1) proposed notice language; (2) a proposed deadline for issuance of notices; and (3) a proposed deadline by which the opt-in period closes by April 16, 2019 .
• Within thirty days after the opt-in period has closed: the parties must submit a joint discovery case management plan that proposes specific discovery deadlines for the merits of this case.
d. Admonition to Defense Counsel
The Court notes that Defense counsel's response consistently cites to the record in a manner that, at best, misleads the Court as to the truth of Defendant's assertion, and, at worst, is completely factually incorrect and unsupported by the record.
The Court will illustrate the deficiency in Defendant's response through an example. At one point, Defendant states, "Silva is not aware of any employees at any [of Defendant's] facilit[ies] being disciplined for missing productivity" and cites to Opt-in Plaintiff Silva's deposition testimony page 103.
Q: Do you know of any employees at McAllen Nursing who have been disciplined for falling short of their productivity requirement?
A: Yes.
Q: Who?
A: I believe her last name was Robinson, Adrian Robinson, Christine McCleary, Valerie Loy, myself. I believe Reanna [McNames] has.
Q: Anyone else?
A: Not that I can remember at this time?
Q: And that's for McAllen Nursing?
A: Uh-huh.
Q: Do you know of any employees at Colonial Manner who have been disciplined for falling short of the productivity requirement? And, again, for-for these questions I'm asking about January 2015 to January 2018.
A: No.
Q: Okay. Do you know of any employees at any other ... facilities that have been disciplined for falling short of the productivity requirement?
A: No.130
When read in context, Silva clearly and directly indicates that she has personal knowledge of five employees of Defendant, including herself, who she believes were disciplined for failing to meet productivity requirements. This directly contradicts Defendant's assertion that Silva testified that she was not aware of "any employees at any ... facility" who had been disciplined.
Defendant's response is replete with similarly misleading or incorrect assertions; the Court finds it unnecessary to list them all. However, the Court reminds Defense counsel of every attorney's duty to only present factual contentions that, to the best of the person's knowledge, have evidentiary support or are likely to have evidentiary support with further investigation.
IV. HOLDING
Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify
all therapists (i.e. , [SLPs], [PTs], [PTAs], [OTs], [COTAs] ) who have been employed by Defendant at any time since March 8, 2015 at any of Defendant's skilled nursing facilities in the state of Texas.134
The Court further sets the following deadlines:
• Within fourteen days of this Order, Defendant must provide to *863Plaintiff a listing of all speech language pathologists, physical therapists, physical therapist assistants, occupational therapists, and certified occupational therapists who have been employed by Defendant at any time since March 8, 2015 at any of Defendant's skilled nursing facilities in the state of Texas. Such list shall include the name, last known mailing address, last known email address, and last known telephone number.
• The parties must submit to the Court: (1) proposed notice language; (2) a proposed deadline for issuance of notices; and (3) a proposed deadline by which the opt-in period closes by April 16, 2019 .
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dkt. No. 31; see also Dkt. No. 32 (Memorandum in support).
Dkt. No. 33.
Dkt. No. 34.
Dkt No. 1 p. 2, ¶ 12; Dkt. No. 33 p. 2, ¶ IA. It is somewhat unclear from the pleadings the number of facilities Defendant currently maintains. Defendant indicates there are 50 or 51 locations in its response. See Dkt. No. 33 pp. 23-24.
See Dkt. No. 31; Dkt. No. 32.
Dkt. No. 1 p. 2, ¶ 8.
Dkt. No. 1 p. 3, ¶ 13.
See Dkt. Nos. 21 (Notice of Consent forms signed by ReAnna McNames and Nancy N. Garcia), 22 (Notice of Consent form signed by Sophia Silva), 26 (Notice of Consent form signed by Kathryn Campbell).
Dkt. No. 32-1 Defendant Regional Director Jennifer Maya Deposition 7:23-9:7 ("Maya Dep.").
See Dkt. No. 33 p. 1.
See Minute Entry dated April 10, 2018.
Dkt. No. 27 (scheduling order).
Dkt No. 31; see also Dkt. No. 32 (Memorandum in support).
Dkt. No. 33 p. 2, ¶ IA; see also Dkt. No. 33-7 ¶¶ 4-5 (Declaration of Carmen Vitton Chief Operating Officer of Defendant declaring that there are over 1,000 current and former therapists and assistants since January 2015).
Dkt. No. 33.
Dkt. No. 34.
Mooney v. Aramco Services ,
Mooney ,
See Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling ,
Tice v. AOC Senior Home Health Corp. ,
Nieddu v. Lifetime Fitness, Inc. ,
Mooney ,
Allen v. McWane, Inc. ,
Vargas v. Richardson Trident Co. ,
Heeg v. Adams Harris, Inc. ,
See e.g., Falcon v. Starbucks Corp. ,
Watson v. Travis Software Corp. , No. H-07-4104,
Shidler v. Alarm Sec. Grp., LLC ,
Dkt. No. 31 p. 1.
Dkt. No. 32 p. 5, ¶ IIA.
Id. at p. 8.
Id. at p 11.
Id. at p. 15.
Id. at p. 9.
Id. at p. 2.
Dkt. No. 32-3 Plaintiff Dep. 69:7-23.
Dkt. No. 32-1 Maya Dep. 17:19-21.
Id. 17:24-25.
Dkt. No. 32; see Dkt. No. 32-8 (Rehab Service Matrix); see also Dkt. No. 32-3 Plaintiff Dep. 50:7-24.
Dkt. No. 32-1 Maya Dep. 11:15-23; 32-2 Defendant Chief Operating Officer Carmen Vitton Deposition 38:3 ("Vitton Dep.").
Dkt. No. 32-2 Vitton Dep. 38:24-39:3.
See e.g. , Dkt. No. 32-3 Plaintiff Dep. 100:2-6; Dkt. No. 32-12 (Collective Exhibit of Weekly Team Meeting Agendas).
Dkt. No. 32-2 Vitton Dep. 46:5-10.
See Dkt. No. 32-8.
See Dkt. No. 32-3 Plaintiff Dep. 22:19-24:4.
See Dkt. No. 32-4 Opt-in Plaintiff Kathryn Campbell Deposition 49:3-51:8 ("Campbell Dep.").
See Dkt. Nos. 32-7 Opt-in Plaintiff Reanna McNames Deposition 56:1-57:1 ("McNames Dep.").
See Dkt. No. 32-3 Plaintiff Dep. 119:9-16; Dkt. No. 32-7 McNames Dep. 58:16-59:6.
See Dkt. No. 32-8; see also Dkt. No. 32-3 Plaintiff Dep. 51:7-53:1.
See e.g., Dkt. No. 32-4 Campbell Dep. 52:1-53:13; Dkt. No. 32-6 Opt-in Plaintiff Sophia Silva Deposition 75:2-76:9 ("Silva Dep."); Dkt. No. 32-9 Dkt. No. 32-9 Jubenal Garcia Deposition 45:4-24 ("J. Garcia Dep.").
Dkt. No. 32 p. 12.
See Dkt. No. 32-12. It is unclear from the Exhibit at which facility these agendas were used. From context the Court assumes they were created for the McAllen facility.
See Dkt. No. 32-10 (March 23, 2016 Team Meeting Agenda). The Court again notes that the location of this meeting is not indicated by the evidence provided in the record.
See Dkt. No. 32-11.
Id. (stating, "[Plaintiff] will maintain a weekly productivity average of 90%).
Dkt. No. 32-6 Silva Dep. 113:1-114:13.
Dkt. No. 32-4 Campbell Dep. 69:20-21; Dkt. No. 32-7 McNames Dep. 72:15-23; Dkt. No. 32-5 Opt-in Plaintiff Nancy Garcia Deposition 74:11-15 ("N. Garcia Dep.").
Id. 102:24-103:21.
Dkt. No. 32-4 Campbell Dep. 43:6-44:5; Dkt. No. 32-5 N. Garcia Dep. 76:13-77:22.
See e.g., Dkt. No. 32-3 Plaintiff Dep. 60:22-61:13; Dkt. No. 32-7 McNames Dep.62:5-7.
See Dkt. No. 32-3 Plaintiff Dep. 107:13-109:13; Dkt. No. 32-4 Campbell Dep. 89:7-90:16; Dkt. No. 32-5 Garcia Dep. 48:10-24; Dkt. No. 32-6 Silva Dep. 83:23-85:19; Dkt. No. 32-7 McNames Dep. 40:2-14.
See e.g. , Dkt. No. 32-5 N. Garcia Dep. 51:15-52:16.
Dkt. No. 32-4 Campbell Dep. 34:22-36:1; Dkt. No. 32-5 Garcia Dep. 49:8-24; Dkt. No. 32-6 Silva Dep. 76:13-77:8; Dkt. No. 32-7 McNames Dep. 79:5-24.
Id. 93:8-12.
Dkt. No. 32 p. 12.
Id. at pp. 12-13.
See Dkt. Nos. 32-14, 32-15, 34-2, 34-3 & 34-4.
See Dkt. No. 32-13 Defendant Corporate Representative Melissa Collier 28:3-17 ("Collier Dep."); Dkt. No. 32-1 Maya Dep. 43:9-14; Dkt. No. 32-9 Defendant McAllen Director Jubenal Garcia Deposition 75:1-3. ("J. Garcia Dep.").
Dkt. No. 32-2 Vitton Dep. 63:24-64:20.
See Dkt. Nos. 32-14, 32-15, 34-2, 34-3 & 34-4.
See Dkt. No. 32-14 (Productivity Averages by Facility and Therapist for January 2015).
See Dkt. No. 32-15 (Productivity Averages by Facility and Therapist for July 2016).
See Dkt Nos. 34-2, 34-4 & 34-5.
See Dkt. Nos. 32-14, 32-15, 34-2, 34-3 & 34-4.
Dkt. No. 32 p. 14.
Id. at p. 17.
Dkt. No. 32-13 Collier Dep. 25:16-20.
Dkt. No. 32-1 Maya Dep. 37:23-40:11, 41:19-42:5; Dkt. No. 32-13 Collier Dep. 25:1-26:11.
See Dkt. No. 33-7 Declaration of Defendant Chief Operating Officer Carmen Vitton ("Medicare Part A Patients typically make up the smallest percentage of [Defendant's] patients. Most of [Defendant's] patients are either Medicare/Managed Care Part B, Medicaid, or facility funded.").
See Dkt. No. 32-13 Collier Dep. 26:12-15; Dkt. No. 32-1 Maya Dep. 47:6-10; Dkt. No. 32-9 J. Garcia Dep. 75:16-76:04.
Dkt. No. 32-4 Campbell Dep. 34:22-36:1; Dkt. No. 32-5 Garcia Dep. 49:8-24; Dkt. No. 32-6 Silva Dep. 76:13-77:8; Dkt. No. 32-7 McNames Dep. 79:5-24.
Dkt. No. 32-7 McNames Dep. 76:6-24.
Dkt. No. 32-6 Silva 107:16-108:13.
Dkt. No. 32-9 J. Garcia Dep. 65:23-66:4. Opt-in Plaintiff Silva provided testimony supporting that such a conversation occurred. See Dkt. No. 32-6 Silva Dep. 107:7-108:13.
Dkt. No. 32-1 Maya dep. 42:16-43:14.
Dkt. No. 32-2 Vitton Dep. 63:24-64:25.
Dkt. No. 32-13 Collier Dep. 26:23-27:7 (acknowledging that it was not her responsibility to monitor productivity, but she would investigate if there appeared to a problem).
Dkt. No. 32-1 Maya Dep. 55:1-17; Dkt. No. 32-13 Collier Dep. 24:7-15, 28:3-29:1; Dkt. No. 32-2 Vitton Dep. 65:1-72:3.
Mooney ,
See Allen. ,
Dkt. No. 32-1 Maya Dep. 11:15-23; 32-2 Vitton Dep. 38:3.
See Dkt. No. 32-8.
See e.g. , Dkt. No. 32-11.
Mooney ,
See Dkt. No. 32-3 Plaintiff Dep. 107:13-109:13; Dkt. No. 32-4 Campbell Dep. 34:22-36:1, 89:7-90:16; Dkt. No. 32-5 Garcia Dep. 48:10-49:24; Dkt. No. 32-6 Silva Dep. 76:13-77:8, 83:23-85:19; Dkt. No. 32-7 McNames Dep. 40:2-14, 79:5-24.
See Mooney ,
See Heeg ,
See Dkt. No. 32-8.
See Dkt. Nos. 32-14, 32-15, 34-2, 34-3 & 34-4.
Dkt. No. 32-9 J. Garcia Dep. 65:23-66:4; see Dkt. No. 32-6 Silva Dep. 107:7-108:13.
Dkt. No. 33.
Dkt. No. 32-3 Plaintiff Dep. 105:22-25.
Dkt. No. 33 p. 17.
Dkt. No. 34 p. 4.
See e.g. , Dkt. No. 32-1 Maya Dep. 47:6-10.
Dkt. No. 3-7 ¶ 6.
See Dkt. No. 32-9 J. Garcia Dep. 65:23-66:4; Dkt. No. 32-4 Campbell Dep. 34:22-36:1; Dkt. No. 32-1 Maya Dep. 55:1-17; Dkt. No. 32-13 Collier Dep. 24:7-15, 28:3-29:1; Dkt. No. 32-2 Vitton Dep. 65:1-72:3.
See Dkt. No. 32-13 Collier Dep. 28:3-17; Dkt. No. 32-1 Maya Dep. 43:9-14; Dkt. No. 32-9 J. Garcia Dep. 75:1-3.
Gulf King Shrimp Co. v. Wirtz ,
Falcon,
Mooney ,
Dkt. No. 33 p. 12 (emphasis added).
Dkt. No. 32-6 Silva Dep. 102:24-103:21 (emphasis added). (Defendant did not include page 102 in its response, but Plaintiff included the page in its motion).
Dkt. No. 33 p. 12.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3).
Dkt. No. 31.