Loera, Jr. v. County of Alameda

Background

The plaintiffs brought one claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), alleging that Alameda County did not pay overtime for required work performed before and after shifts by Sheriff’s safety aides at the Oakland International Airport. The alleged work included attending “muster” meetings, picking up body cameras and radios, putting on uniforms, traveling by van to airport posts, returning from those posts, and returning equipment. The plaintiffs alleged that this time was unpaid.

Antonio Loera, Jr. had worked as a Sheriff’s safety aide since July 2005. Charlotte Daniels held the same job from November 2010 to September 2021. Twenty other plaintiffs had consented to join the lawsuit. The proposed collective consisted of Sheriff’s safety aides and people in similar or related positions who worked for the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office in and around the airport during the relevant period.

The plaintiffs submitted eleven declarations from current and former safety aides. The declarations described a similar routine: aides typically worked compensated shifts totaling 40 hours per week, arrived at least 15 minutes early, spent at least 15 minutes after shifts returning and turning in equipment, and were not paid for that additional time. Some declarants said they had complained about the unpaid time.

Conditional Certification

The court granted the motion for conditional certification. Under the FLSA, employees may pursue an “opt-in” collective action when they claim an FLSA violation, are similarly situated, and affirmatively join in writing. At this early stage, the plaintiffs’ burden was lenient and similar to showing that their allegations were plausible.

The court found that the complaint’s allegations alone were too conclusory, but the declarations provided enough evidence to make it plausible that the proposed collective members shared a material issue of fact or law. Specifically, the evidence supported the allegation that the aides were subject to a common pre- and post-shift muster and transportation routine for which they were not compensated. The court emphasized that it was deciding only whether notice could be sent to potential participants, not whether the county actually violated the FLSA.

Notice Rulings

The court ordered the parties to meet and confer about a revised notice. The plaintiffs’ counsel could distribute the notice themselves unless the county agreed to pay for a third-party administrator. The court allowed notice to reach safety aides who worked during the proposed three-year period because the allegations of a willful violation—that the county knowingly violated the FLSA or disregarded the possibility of violating it—were plausible. The court stated that the limitations issue had not yet been decided.

The court ordered that the notice remove the word “important” from a sentence explaining that the court had not ruled on the merits. The notice must instead say that the court ordered notification so recipients can decide whether to join. Notice must be sent by first-class mail. A reminder notice by first-class mail may be sent 45 days after the initial mailing.

The court denied the county’s request to shorten the 90-day period for potential participants to opt in. It also denied the county’s request to include its counsel’s contact information, to state that the plaintiffs’ union was not participating, and to state that people who join might have to pay the county’s attorney’s fees if the county prevails. The order resolved the plaintiffs’ motion, identified as ECF No. 16. Judge Laurel Beeler ordered conditional certification and the notice revisions.