Wood v. Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc.

Background

Ten named plaintiffs brought a collective and proposed class action against Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc. They asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the federal law governing minimum wages and overtime, and state wage-and-hour laws. The plaintiffs worked as Field Organizers for the Campaign during the period November 24, 2019, through March 31, 2020.

The plaintiffs alleged that Field Organizers generally worked well over 40 hours per week but received no overtime pay because the Campaign classified all Field Organizers as exempt from overtime requirements. The record showed that the Campaign used a uniform exemption classification and did not individually analyze particular Field Organizers’ duties before making that classification. The parties agreed that Field Organizers were subject to the same exemption and overtime policies, but disputed whether the classification was legally proper.

The plaintiffs sought certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which allows qualifying claims to proceed as a class action on behalf of absent members. They proposed seven state classes covering Field Organizers in California, New York, Illinois, North Carolina, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. The Campaign separately moved to decertify the existing FLSA collective, which had previously received conditional certification.

Class Certification

The court held that the proposed classes satisfied Rule 23’s requirements. The classes contained more than 600 people in total: 205 in California, 104 in New York, 77 in Illinois, 86 in North Carolina, 67 in Michigan, 42 in Wisconsin, and 31 in Minnesota. The court also concluded that the Minnesota class satisfied the numerosity requirement despite having fewer than 40 members.

For commonality, the court identified a shared question: whether the Campaign could prove that Field Organizers were properly exempt from overtime laws under the administrative or executive exemptions. The court found evidence that Field Organizers spent most of their time contacting voters and volunteers by telephone and door-to-door canvassing, used Campaign-provided scripts and voter lists, and worked under a uniform exemption policy and job description. Variations in tasks, supervision, or individual outreach methods did not defeat commonality at the certification stage.

The court also found typicality because the named plaintiffs’ claims arose from the same alleged conduct and involved the same argument that Field Organizers were misclassified as exempt. The court rejected the Campaign’s arguments that certain representatives’ other work or school responsibilities, credibility questions, criminal convictions, or memory issues made them inadequate representatives. The court found that Outten & Golden LLP and Shavitz Law Group, P.A. were qualified to serve as class counsel and that the named plaintiffs had participated in the case, understood their roles, and had no known conflicts with other class members.

The court found predominance because the common questions—whether the Campaign’s exemption policy was proper and whether Field Organizers’ primary duties made them exempt—could be addressed with common evidence. The court acknowledged differences in individual duties, discretion, volunteer work, event planning, hours, and other circumstances, but concluded that those differences did not outweigh the common issues for class-certification purposes. The court also found that a class action was the superior method because the claims arose from the same policy and individual litigation costs could outweigh individual recoveries.

FLSA Collective Decertification

The FLSA permits similarly situated employees to proceed together in a collective action. The court explained that employees are similarly situated when they share a material issue of law or fact related to their claims, even if they differ in other respects.

The court concluded that the named plaintiffs and opt-in plaintiffs were sufficiently similarly situated. The evidence showed that Field Organizers were subject to the same exemption policy and uniform job description and performed largely consistent primary duties. The court also noted that the Campaign conceded that some issues could be resolved collectively. Because a single common issue related to the FLSA claims was enough to deny decertification, the court denied the Campaign’s motion.

Disposition

Judge Swain granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and denied Defendant’s Motion to Decertify the FLSA Collective. The court certified the seven state classes, appointed the specified class representatives, and appointed Outten & Golden LLP and Shavitz Law Group, P.A. as class counsel. The opinion did not determine whether the Campaign’s exemption classification ultimately violated the FLSA or state labor laws. The case remained referred to Magistrate Judge Gorenstein for general pretrial management.