Darling v. Dignity Health

Background

Tomery Darling and Ana Jara brought a proposed collective and class action against Dignity Health, Dignity Community Care (DCC), and Dignity Health Medical Group Nevada LLC (DHMGN). They asserted wage-and-hour claims under federal, California, and Nevada law. The motion addressed only Jara’s claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the federal law governing such issues as minimum wage and overtime pay.

Jara alleged that she worked as an hourly, nonexempt medical assistant at an outpatient clinic in Las Vegas, Nevada, from November 2013 through December 3, 2019. She alleged that she and other patient-care employees were required to enter patient-care notes into the Cerner electronic medical-record system. According to the allegations, understaffing and overtime preapproval requirements caused employees to perform charting before or after scheduled shifts or during meal breaks, while they were not clocked into the separate Teams timekeeping system.

The plaintiffs also alleged that the defendants knew, or should have known, about the unpaid work because employees had to chart while at defendants’ facilities, defendants’ agents observed the charting, and Cerner recorded the dates and times of entries. Eight people had opted into the litigation and submitted declarations describing similar experiences.

Legal standard

Under the FLSA, employees may litigate together if they claim an FLSA violation, are similarly situated, and affirmatively join in writing. Conditional certification is the first stage of the Ninth Circuit’s two-stage process. At this stage, the court applies a lenient standard and asks whether the proposed participants plausibly share legal or factual issues that matter to resolving their claims. Conditional certification’s immediate consequence is that the court-approved notice may be sent to workers who may wish to join. The defendants may later seek decertification after discovery under a stricter standard.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that the plaintiffs had shown enough similarity for conditional certification. The proposed participants were nonexempt, hourly patient-care employees who used Cerner to record patient-care notes. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants’ staffing levels and overtime preapproval policies resulted in unpaid charting time and that Cerner and Teams records could be compared to identify that time.

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs had to produce evidence of an express instruction, written policy, or memorandum directing employees to work off the clock. The court explained that the plaintiffs’ theory was that understaffing and restrictive overtime rules resulted in the unpaid work. It also rejected the argument that Cerner records alone could not show employer knowledge, noting that the plaintiffs additionally alleged that defendants’ agents observed employees charting during unpaid periods and that employees were required to chart at defendants’ facilities.

The court emphasized that it was not deciding whether the plaintiffs’ allegations about the defendants’ actual or constructive knowledge would ultimately be proven. That question remained for later proceedings on a more developed record.

Disposition

The court GRANTED conditional certification of an FLSA collective action against Dignity Health and DHMGN. It APPROVED the revised proposed collective-action notice, which covered people meeting the collective definition from August 27, 2017, to the present. The court DENIED conditional certification as to DCC because neither the named nor opt-in plaintiffs provided evidence that they were employed by DCC, and the complaint and motion made no specific allegations against DCC. The order terminated Docket No. 42.