Stickles v. Atria Senior Living, Inc.

Background

George Stickles and Michele Rhodes worked as Community Sales Directors for Atria Senior Living, Inc. and Atria Management Company, LLC. They alleged that the defendants misclassified them and other Community Sales Directors as exempt employees.

A prior order certified a class of Community Sales Directors who had not signed arbitration agreements and whom the defendants classified as exempt outside salespersons. The certified period ran from April 9, 2018, when Stickles began working for the defendants, through September 29, 2019. The prior certification addressed only whether the defendants properly classified Community Sales Directors as exempt outside salespersons; certification of the underlying wage-and-hour claims was held in abeyance.

Motion for Reconsideration

The plaintiffs asked the court to reconsider the class period and extend its beginning date to December 18, 2016, four years before the complaint was filed. Under Rule 59(e), reconsideration generally requires newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in controlling law, and cannot be used to present arguments or evidence that could have been raised earlier.

The court denied reconsideration. The plaintiffs presented no newly discovered evidence and did not identify an intervening change in controlling law. The court also found that the record did not establish that Stickles’s experience was typical of employees who worked before he was hired. The fact that the same job description applied before and after Stickles’s employment began was not enough to extend the class period.

Alternative Relief

The plaintiffs alternatively sought to amend the complaint and add Rellie Kirwan, a former Community Sales Director employed from February 2016 to April 2018, as another class representative. They also sought to modify the class period to begin on December 18, 2016, and reopen discovery so the defendants could investigate Kirwan’s typicality and adequacy under Rule 23.

The court stated that the alternative motion was properly before it, even though it was filed as an alternative to reconsideration. The court did not decide whether the plaintiffs could amend the scheduling order and complaint. Instead, it ruled that Kirwan could not be appointed because he was not typical of the class.

“Typicality” asks whether the representative’s claim involves the same or similar injury and conduct as the claims of other class members. “Adequacy” requires the representative to protect the class’s interests fairly and sufficiently. The defendants argued that Kirwan faced a unique defense because he had been terminated for allegedly falsifying entries concerning outside sales activities in the defendants’ customer-relationship-management database. They argued that this called his credibility into question.

The court concluded that class members could be harmed if Kirwan became focused on defending against that issue. It reasoned that counsel would have to spend time and resources on discovery and depositions concerning Kirwan, and that Kirwan might place his own interests ahead of the class’s interests. The plaintiffs did not rebut those concerns.

Disposition

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and denied their motion for alternative relief. The order did not change the previously certified class period or add Kirwan as a class representative.