Johnson v. North Memorial Health Care

Background

Jason Johnson worked for North Memorial Health Care as an emergency medical technician from April 2002 to April 2023. He asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Minnesota’s Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act. He alleged that North Memorial failed to pay overtime and failed to pay Minnesota’s required minimum wage.

North Memorial’s emergency medical technicians and paramedics worked both primary hours and on-call, or off-premise, hours. In Minnesota, North Memorial paid primary hours at the employee’s regular hourly rate and paid $4 per hour for on-call hours. It also excluded on-call hours when calculating overtime. On-call employees were expected to respond within eight minutes, be appropriately dressed, and avoid alcohol and other mind-altering substances while on call.

Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois had conditionally certified an FLSA collective action, and approximately 120 employees opted in. Johnson also sought certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for Minnesota-law claims. The proposed Rule 23 class covered people who worked as paramedics or emergency medical technicians for North Memorial in Minnesota between June 13, 2020, and April 24, 2022, and were subject to the challenged on-call pay and overtime policies.

Motion to Decertify the FLSA Collective Action

The FLSA allows employees with similar claims to sue collectively, but each employee must file written consent to join. North Memorial argued that the opt-in employees were not similarly situated because whether on-call time counts as work depends on each employee’s circumstances.

The court explained that whether on-call time is compensable depends on the agreements between the parties, how those agreements operated in practice, the nature of the service, and the surrounding circumstances. The central consideration is the extent to which the employer’s policies interfere with employees’ personal activities.

The court found substantial commonality. All of the EMTs were subject to the eight-minute response requirement, clothing requirements, and restrictions on alcohol and other mind-altering substances. They were also subject to the allegedly unlawful practices of receiving less than minimum wage for on-call hours and having those hours excluded from overtime calculations.

The court concluded that differences in the number of calls, time spent responding, personal activities, work locations, scheduling practices, notification devices, and employees’ knowledge of the policies did not prevent collective treatment. The court also rejected North Memorial’s argument that fairness required all approximately 120 opt-in employees to testify, reasoning that representative evidence could be used and that separate trials would be inefficient.

The court therefore denied North Memorial’s motion to decertify the FLSA collective action.

Motion to Certify the Minnesota Class

Rule 23(a) requires numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequate representation. The court found that the proposed class had approximately 230 members, satisfying numerosity. Johnson’s claims were typical because the class members were subject to the same challenged policies. The court also found that Johnson and his attorneys had adequately represented the class and that the common question—whether on-call time should be treated as working time—could be decided on a classwide basis.

Under Rule 23(b)(3), common questions must predominate over individual questions, and a class action must be superior to other available methods. The court found that the treatment of on-call time was the dominant issue and that damages were likely to be determined using employment records. It also found that a class action was superior because the alternative could involve more than 100 individual lawsuits.

The court did not decide whether Minnesota law provides broader coverage for on-call time than the FLSA. It concluded that this issue did not need to be resolved to decide the class-certification motion.

The court granted Johnson’s motion for class certification and certified the proposed Minnesota class under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3). It appointed Johnson as class representative and Nichols Kaster, PLLP, as class counsel.

Additional Orders

The court ordered North Memorial, within 14 days, to provide Johnson with an electronic list of people fitting the class definition, including each person’s name, last-known address, last-known telephone number, employment dates, and work locations. The court approved the proposed class notice, with one specified revision, including a 45-day notice period. Class counsel was required to mail the notice within seven days after the court approved it.

Disposition

The order granted Johnson’s motion for class certification and denied North Memorial’s motion to decertify the FLSA collective action. The order addressed whether the claims could proceed collectively or as a class; it did not decide whether North Memorial ultimately violated the wage laws.