Monplaisir v. Integrated Tech Group, LLC

Background

Paul Monplaisir, Jacky Charles, Sterling Francois, and other employees sued Integrated Tech Group, LLC and ITG Communications LLC over alleged wage-and-hour violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). They alleged that employees worked off the clock during training, pre-shift work, meal periods, driving time, and other activities, and that the defendants pressured employees to alter or underreport their time and systematically undercalculated their pay.

The court had previously conditionally approved a nationwide FLSA collective and later ordered many members to arbitrate their claims. The plaintiffs then asked the court to certify a class of California employees. After discovery, the parties identified 238 putative California class members, of whom 16 had not agreed to arbitration.

Analysis

Rule 23(a)(1) requires a proposed class to be sufficiently numerous that joining all members individually would be impractical. The court held that the prior order compelling arbitration also applied to the putative California class members. It found that 222 of the 238 proposed class members had agreed to arbitrate.

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ challenges to the arbitration agreements. It found that the blue handwriting and other marks on many agreements had innocent explanations and did not show that the defendants improperly added terms after employees signed. The court also held that most of the plaintiffs’ arguments about how employees assented to arbitration had been forfeited because they could have been raised earlier. The remaining challenge to one employee’s signature failed on the evidence because the mark objectively indicated assent and was consistent with that employee’s other signatures.

The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ challenge to the completeness of the class list, finding that the evidence did not establish that Francisco Borges Chirino worked for the defendants in California during the relevant period. It further held that the defendants had not waived arbitration through settlement discussions because the plaintiffs had not shown prejudice.

Disposition

The court found that only 16 proposed class members remained outside the arbitration order, which was too few to satisfy the numerosity requirement. Class certification was denied. The 16 California employees who had not been compelled to arbitrate could intervene in the lawsuit as individual plaintiffs with counsel of their choosing. The remaining putative class members and FLSA collective members could pursue their claims individually through arbitration. The court also set deadlines for intervention, discovery, expert reports, dispositive motions, the final pretrial conference, and trial.