Herrera v. EOS IT Management Solutions, Inc.

Background

Luis Herrera and Andy Herrera brought the action on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated employees against EOS IT Management Solutions, Inc. and EOS Unified Solutions, Inc. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants operated a nationwide information technology services company and employed Field Engineers to install information technology and audiovisual equipment at client offices.

Herrera alleged that he worked as a Field Engineer in Texas from June 2015 to May 2018. Andy Herrera alleged that he worked as a Field Engineer in New York from January 2017 to August 2018. The plaintiffs alleged that Field Engineers performed installation and physical labor, often worked more than 40 hours per week, were not provided meal or rest breaks, and were paid salaries without overtime compensation. They contended that the defendants improperly classified them and other Field Engineers as exempt from overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The complaint asserted ten causes of action, including FLSA overtime claims, California wage claims, and New York wage claims. The motion addressed conditional certification of an FLSA collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). In an FLSA collective action, potential participants must file written consents to join; employees who do not opt in are not bound by the judgment and may later bring their own actions.

Legal Standard

The court applied the first, or “notice-stage,” step of the two-step collective-action analysis because discovery had not closed. At this stage, plaintiffs must make a modest factual showing that they and potential opt-in plaintiffs were similarly situated with respect to a material issue, including that they were affected by a common decision, policy, or plan. The court explained that this is a lenient standard and does not determine whether an actual legal violation occurred.

At a later stage, after discovery, defendants may seek decertification. The court would then apply a stricter standard and assess issues such as differences in the plaintiffs’ employment situations, defenses applicable to individual employees, and fairness and procedural concerns.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that the plaintiffs made the required showing of a common policy. Five declarations stated that the declarants were salaried Field Engineers, were classified as exempt from overtime, and received no additional pay for work over 40 hours. The court also relied on statements in the defendants’ answer acknowledging that the plaintiffs were classified as exempt and paid consistently with that classification.

The court also found sufficient evidence that the potential collective members had similar job duties and compensation. The declarations described Field Engineers installing audiovisual, teleconferencing, and information technology equipment, performing related physical labor, and being paid salaries. A job description produced in discovery listed similar duties and identified the job location as the United States. The court found that differences among job titles, including possible differences between junior and lead engineers, did not defeat certification at the notice stage because the roles shared core installation duties and the defendants had not shown that the differences led to different overtime-classification policies.

The court declined to exclude employees who might be bound by arbitration agreements. It reasoned that arbitration agreements concerned potential defenses rather than whether the employees were connected by a common policy, making enforceability better suited to the later decertification stage. The court also rejected the defendants’ request to limit the collective to the five states where the named plaintiffs worked. Declarations from Field Engineers who worked in five states and the nationwide job description provided a sufficient basis for nationwide notice at this stage.

Notice and Order

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for conditional FLSA collective-action certification and conditionally certified this group: “All current and former Field Engineers employed by Defendant EOS IT Management Solutions, Inc. and classified as exempt from overtime for at least one week between February 11, 2017 and the present.”

The court ordered the defendants to provide plaintiffs’ counsel, within 15 days of the order, a list containing the group members’ names, employment dates, known addresses, known telephone numbers, dates of birth, and known email addresses. The plaintiffs were ordered to send the notice and opt-in form by first-class mail, email, and text message within seven days after receiving that information. Potential opt-ins could file consent-to-join forms until 60 days after the notice was mailed. The plaintiffs had to pay the full cost of the notices and opt-in forms. The court declined the plaintiffs’ request to hire a third-party notice administrator.