Sablowsky v. Auto-Chlor System, LLC

Background

The court had previously granted the plaintiffs’ motion for conditional collective-action certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The certified group consists of exempt-classified branch managers and employees in similar positions with different job titles who worked at any defendants’ branch locations nationwide from May 25, 2020, through the present.

The parties submitted a joint proposal concerning notice to potential collective members. They disputed whether the court could send notice to employees of regional entities that were not named as defendants, the geographic scope of the notice, the defendants’ obligation to provide contact information, and several details about the notice and reminder.

Jurisdiction and Scope of Notice

The court clarified that its prior conditional-certification order applies to all branch locations of all Auto-Chlor System regional entities in the United States. The court had already found enough evidence of similarly situated employees to support conditional certification and did not need to evaluate every nationwide location separately.

The court held that nationwide notice was appropriate because the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged Auto-Chlor System, LLC was a joint employer of the branch managers at this stage. Auto-Chlor System, LLC is a named defendant and is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction. The court therefore rejected the argument that sending notice to workers at branches associated with other entities would improperly involve third parties. Any challenge to the joint-employer characterization may be raised at the later decertification stage.

The court noted that regional entities that are not currently parties could challenge personal jurisdiction if the plaintiffs later sought to name them as defendants. It considered that issue moot because the plaintiffs had not sought to add those entities. Workers who opt in would at least be pursuing claims against Auto-Chlor System, LLC as an alleged joint employer.

Contact Information

The plaintiffs requested each potential collective member’s last known address, non-work telephone number, email address, and dates and locations of employment. The court ordered the defendants to provide that information to the extent it is within their custody or control and directed the parties to meet and confer about the issue.

Notice Terms and Disposition

The court directed that the notice header include the defendants’ suggested changes but rejected their proposed changes in two bullet points. It approved using the short-form name “Auto-Chlor System.” It ordered removal of the plaintiffs’ proposed language concerning a possible lack of recovery because the language was redundant and unnecessary.

The court declined to require text-message notice at this time. The plaintiffs may raise that issue later if there is evidence that mailed notice was insufficient. The court approved the proposed reminder notice and left its timing to the plaintiffs. It rejected the defendants’ proposed envelope changes and directed that the envelope include the words “against Auto-Chlor System.”

The parties were ordered to meet and confer about the collective notice and contact information. By May 10, 2024, they had to submit a clean version of the proposed collective notice and reminder notice, with the shaded placeholder text replaced by substantive information. By the same date, the defendants had to provide the requested potential-member information to the extent it was within their custody or control. This order addressed notice and related procedures; it did not decide whether the defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.