Vallone v. CJS Solutions Group, LLC, The

Background

Plaintiffs Joyce Vallone and Erasmus Igokor worked for The CJS Solutions Group, LLC, doing business as The HCI Group (HCI). Vallone and Igokor worked at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester during April and May 2018, and Igokor also worked for HCI at hospitals in St. Louis and New York City.

The plaintiffs alleged that HCI did not pay them for travel from remote locations, usually their homes, to worksites and back at the ends of their assignments. They also alleged that HCI directed them to travel to Rochester for training scheduled on April 30, 2018, then canceled that training late on April 29 without paying them for April 30 while they waited in Rochester. They sought conditional certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action. Unlike a Rule 23 class action, an FLSA collective action requires potential members to consent in writing to join.

Conditional-certification standard

At the initial conditional-certification stage, plaintiffs need only provide evidence showing a reasonable basis to believe that the proposed members were affected by one policy or decision and are similarly situated. The court does not resolve credibility disputes or make final factual findings at this stage.

The court found that the plaintiffs met this low initial burden regarding HCI workers connected to the Mayo Clinic project and the canceled April 30 training. The court found that differences in how workers traveled to the remote jobsite did not defeat conditional certification at this stage.

Personal jurisdiction

HCI argued that the court lacked specific personal jurisdiction over claims involving workers who worked outside Minnesota. The court concluded that HCI had not waived this defense, even though its answer did not state it as explicitly as the court would have preferred.

The court held that its jurisdiction in this collective-action case extended only to claims involving HCI workers assigned to the Mayo Clinic project or workers who were Minnesota residents. It therefore denied the request to certify a collective broader than those groups. The court directed the parties to agree on a revised collective definition within ten days.

Arbitration

HCI argued that some potential collective members had signed arbitration agreements. The court noted that the agreements identified by HCI began in October 2018, after HCI had finished its Mayo Clinic work, and that fewer than half of the people in the originally proposed collective had signed such agreements. Because HCI had separately moved to compel arbitration, the parties could address whether particular members were bound by valid arbitration agreements in briefing on that motion. The court did not deny conditional certification on this ground.

Representatives, information, and notice

The court denied without prejudice the plaintiffs’ request to appoint them as collective representatives and their lawyers as collective counsel because the plaintiffs provided no supporting argument and the court found no cases addressing such an appointment at this stage.

The court declined to require HCI to provide sensitive information such as Social Security numbers. It ordered HCI to provide the names, mailing addresses, and last known email addresses of potential collective members.

The court ruled that notice by mail and email was sufficient. HCI did not have to include notice with employees’ paychecks. The notice period would be 60 days, with no mid-period reminder. The parties were directed to submit a revised collective definition, notice and consent forms, and a proposed notice program for approval. The court would authorize notice after receiving the proposed program.

Other requests and disposition

The court denied without prejudice the plaintiffs’ request to toll, or pause, the statute of limitations as of the filing of their certification motion. The plaintiffs could raise that issue later if it became relevant to an individual who joined the collective.

The court ordered that the Motion for Conditional Certification was granted in part and denied in part.