Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled June 30, 2025

Mora v. U.S. Bancorp

Judge
Nancy Brasel
Docket
0:24-cv-04112
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
19
FlsaEmploymentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Mora v. U.S. Bancorp, Magistrate Judge Foster conditionally certified an FLSA collective and partly granted notice requests concerning alleged unpaid pre-shift work.

Who this affects

Arnelle Mora, the four identified opt-in plaintiffs, and current and former hourly call-center employees who worked for U.S. Bancorp or U.S. Bank National Association at any time during the three years before notice.

What happened

Mora v. U.S. Bancorp concerns Arnelle Mora’s claim that U.S. Bancorp and U.S. Bank National Association failed to pay hourly call-center employees for work performed before scheduled shifts, including computer startup and log-in time. She asked the court to conditionally certify a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and authorize notice to other potentially affected workers.

The court found that Mora and four opt-in plaintiffs provided enough evidence at this early stage to show that hourly call-center employees may have been affected by common timekeeping policies and practices. The court did not decide whether the workers were ultimately denied wages or whether the defendants’ policies violated the law; it said those issues could be examined later.

Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster conditionally certified the proposed collective, approved the notice, required defendants to provide names, addresses, employment information, and personal and work email addresses by July 10, 2025, and allowed notice by mail and email. The court denied the request to use text messages and therefore did not require telephone numbers; the motion was granted in part and denied in part.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Mora v. U.S. Bancorp · No. 0:24-cv-04112
Judge
Nancy Brasel
Date
June 30, 2025

Background

Arnelle Mora brought a putative collective and class action against U.S. Bancorp and U.S. Bank National Association. She alleged that the defendants failed to pay hourly call-center employees for all time worked, including overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and common law.

Mora alleged that call-center employees were required to turn on computers, complete startup tasks, and log into systems before clocking into the defendants’ timekeeping system. She claimed this commonly resulted in 10 to 15 minutes or more of unpaid work before shifts. Four employees had opted into the case and submitted supporting declarations.

The defendants submitted evidence describing policies that prohibited off-the-clock work and required employees to record all time worked. Their policies also directed employees to be ready to handle calls within five minutes of the scheduled shift start and warned that unapproved overtime could result in discipline. Mora and some opt-in plaintiffs submitted supplemental declarations stating that supervisors instructed them to exclude computer startup time from their recorded start times and that reporting unapproved overtime could result in discipline.

Conditional Certification

Under Section 216(b) of the FLSA, employees may bring a collective action for unpaid overtime, but employees must provide written consent to join. At the conditional-certification stage, the plaintiff must make a relatively light showing that potential members are similarly situated and may have been affected by a common unlawful policy or plan. The court does not resolve conflicting evidence or decide credibility at this stage.

The court held that Mora’s complaint, declarations, supplemental declarations, and exhibits provided a sufficient factual basis for conditional certification. The evidence indicated that the proposed collective members, despite having different job titles and working in different locations, were hourly, non-exempt employees who used computers and allegedly performed unpaid work before or after scheduled shifts. The court also found sufficient interest because the case had one named plaintiff and four opt-in plaintiffs.

The court declined to limit the collective to the defendants’ Collections organization. It found that the defendants’ cited policies applied to non-exempt employees generally and that the defendants had not shown a reason to apply those policies differently across business lines.

The conditionally certified collective was defined as: “All current and former hourly call center employees who worked for Defendants at any time in the past three years.”

Notice and Other Relief

The court approved Mora’s proposed Notice and Consent Form. Defendants were ordered to provide, by July 10, 2025, an electronic and importable list containing each potential collective member’s name, last known address, dates and location of employment, and all known personal and work email addresses.

The court authorized Mora’s counsel to distribute the notice by U.S. mail and email. It rejected distribution by text message as intrusive and unnecessary and therefore did not require defendants to provide telephone numbers. Potential collective members were given 60 days to submit or postmark a consent form, and Mora’s counsel was authorized to send one reminder notice by email at the 30-day mark to people who had not responded.

The court appointed Kevin J. Stoops and Thomas V. Nafziger as counsel for the collective action.

Disposition

The court ordered that Mora’s motion for conditional collective certification and court-authorized notice was GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The court conditionally certified the FLSA collective, approved the notice, ordered production of specified contact and employment information, authorized mail and email notice, allowed a 60-day opt-in period and one email reminder, and appointed Mora’s counsel. The request to distribute notice by text message was not granted, and telephone numbers were not required.

The authoritative version

Read the full 19-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.