OConner v. Agilant Solutions, Inc.

Background

The named plaintiffs and opt-in plaintiffs worked as Field Technicians for Agilant Solutions, Inc., directly or through a third-party staffing company. They alleged that Agilant sent work assignments by email after the technicians’ scheduled workday, requiring them to prepare routes, review materials, exchange parts, complete certifications, and perform other work for the next day. They also alleged that technicians sometimes worked during mandatory meal breaks.

According to the plaintiffs’ affidavits, technicians were required to enter eight hours per workday into Agilant’s payroll system rather than their actual hours. The plaintiffs alleged that Agilant allowed overtime only for pre-approved projects and did not pay for incidental overtime. They claimed these practices violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which requires covered employers to pay overtime for qualifying work beyond 40 hours in a workweek.

Motion and Legal Standard

The plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of an FLSA collective action, court-authorized notice to potential participants, expedited discovery, and equitable tolling of the FLSA limitations period. In an FLSA collective action, employees who choose to join by filing consents may participate in the case.

At the first stage of the collective-action process, plaintiffs need only make a modest factual showing that they and potential participants were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the FLSA. The court does not decide factual disputes, credibility, or the ultimate merits at this stage. After notice, the opt-in period, and discovery, the court may reconsider whether the participants are actually similarly situated.

Ruling on Conditional Certification

The court held that the plaintiffs met the limited first-stage burden. Their affidavits and supporting materials indicated that other New York City field technicians performed similar work, received assignments through the same ticketing system, received after-hours route emails, performed evening work, and were instructed to enter eight hours into Agilant’s payroll system.

The court also found that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged a common policy that required unpaid overtime work. It rejected Agilant’s arguments that the claims required too much individualized inquiry and that the plaintiffs’ work was not compensable. The court stated that those arguments were premature because they addressed the merits rather than whether the technicians were similarly situated at the conditional-certification stage.

The court conditionally certified one collective consisting of technicians who were currently employed by Agilant or had previously been employed by Agilant, directly or indirectly, in New York City during the relevant three-year period. The court did not decide whether the plaintiffs would ultimately be able to proceed as one collective, as two collectives, or not as a collective after further proceedings.

Equitable Tolling

The court granted the plaintiffs’ request to equitably toll the FLSA limitations period from May 15, 2019, when the certification motion was filed, through November 22, 2019, the date of the order. The court found that the plaintiffs had pursued their rights diligently and that the time needed to resolve the motion was beyond the parties’ control and could prejudice potential participants.

Disposition and Further Proceedings

The court granted the plaintiffs’ request for conditional certification and granted their request for equitable tolling. It directed the parties to participate in a November 25, 2019 teleconference concerning proposed notice, how notice would be distributed, consent forms, expedited discovery, and other pending scheduling matters. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at docket number 46. The order did not decide whether Agilant ultimately violated the FLSA or whether the plaintiffs would prevail.