Learing v. Anthem Companies, Inc., The

Background

Christine Learing brought a proposed collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). She alleged that The Anthem Companies, Inc. classified her and other nurses as exempt from overtime requirements, even though they worked more than 40 hours per week, and failed to pay them overtime compensation. The case also includes proposed state-law claims, but those claims were not relevant to this motion.

Learing asked the court to conditionally certify an FLSA collective, facilitate notice to potential members, and require Anthem to provide information about those potential members. She proposed a collective consisting of people who worked in Minnesota as medical-management nurses, utilization-management nurses, utilization-review nurses, or in similar positions; were paid a salary; were treated as exempt from overtime laws; and were primarily responsible for medical-necessity reviews, during the three years before the complaint through judgment.

Learing submitted declarations from seven people. The declarations stated that they performed medical-necessity reviews by comparing healthcare providers’ authorization requests with Anthem’s guidelines and criteria for insurance coverage and payment. They also stated that the workers used Anthem’s systems and policies, were subject to productivity quotas and audits, generally could approve requests meeting the criteria but sent other requests to a medical doctor, worked more than 40 hours per week, did not have to track their hours, received salaries, and did not receive overtime pay.

Anthem submitted declarations describing differences among the nurses’ duties, including differences involving inpatient and outpatient reviews, medical specialties, guidelines, administrative responsibilities, supervision, and training. The court considered Anthem’s materials only to the extent they did not contradict Learing’s evidence in ways that would require credibility determinations or resolution of factual disputes. The court also declined to consider excerpts from declarations filed in a different case because those declarations were not filed in this case.

Legal standard

Under the FLSA, an employee may sue for unpaid overtime on behalf of the employee and other employees who are similarly situated. Employees must give written consent to join the case. At the first stage of the District of Minnesota’s two-stage process, the court decides whether the proposed collective should be conditionally certified for notice and discovery. The plaintiff’s burden at this stage is light: the plaintiff must show a colorable basis for claiming that the proposed members were affected by a common decision, policy, or plan. Courts generally rely on the pleadings and declarations and do not make credibility determinations or resolve factual disputes at this stage.

After discovery, the defendant may seek decertification at the second stage. Because discovery had not been completed, the court applied only the first-stage standard here.

Anthem asked the court to use a different approach from a Fifth Circuit decision that called for a more rigorous review at the beginning of the case. The court declined to adopt that approach and continued to apply the District of Minnesota’s two-stage inquiry.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Learing had shown a colorable basis for concluding that she and the proposed collective members were similarly situated. The evidence indicated that the workers performed the same general type of medical-necessity review, applied Anthem’s guidelines and criteria, were subject to productivity requirements and audits, worked more than 40 hours per week, were paid salaries, were not required to report their hours, and were treated as exempt from overtime protections.

The court concluded that differences in job titles, review types, specialties, and specific duties did not defeat conditional certification. The relevant standard was whether the workers were similarly situated, not whether they were identical. The court also rejected Anthem’s challenges to the declarants’ personal knowledge and to their ability to know about coworkers’ duties after some employees began working remotely. The court found that the declarants relied on personal knowledge, experiences, and observations, and that they had worked together in Anthem’s office before March 2020.

The court further found that Learing had identified a common alleged compensation policy: the workers were paid salaries, treated as exempt, not required to record their hours, and allegedly not paid overtime despite working more than 40 hours per week.

Order and effect

The court granted Learing’s Motion for Conditional Certification. It conditionally certified an FLSA collective consisting of:

- people who worked as medical-management nurses, utilization-management nurses, utilization-review nurses, or in similar job titles; - people who were paid a salary and treated as exempt from overtime laws; and - people primarily responsible for performing medical-necessity reviews for Anthem in Minnesota during the three years before the complaint through judgment.

Within 21 days of the order, Anthem must provide Learing with each potential collective member’s name, job title, last known address, last known personal email address, dates of employment, and employment locations in an electronic, importable format. The court did not require Anthem to provide Social Security numbers or employee identification numbers.

Within 14 days, the parties must meet and confer and file either a mutually acceptable notice and distribution plan or separate proposals explaining their disagreements. The order conditionally certified the collective and established these notice-related procedures; it did not decide whether Anthem ultimately violated the FLSA or whether any proposed collective member is entitled to overtime compensation.