Navar v. Walsh Construction Company II, LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:18-cv-10476
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Navar v. Walsh Construction, Judge Schofield approved plaintiffs’ proposed methods for notifying potential collective members and receiving opt-in consents.
The order affects the potential members of the conditionally certified collective, plaintiffs’ counsel, and defendants by approving how notices and consent forms may be distributed and returned.
What happened
In Navar v. Walsh Construction Company II, LLC, the parties disputed how to notify people who could join a conditionally approved group lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiffs proposed sending notices by email, sending text messages with a link to the full notice, and allowing people to return consent forms by mail, fax, or email. Defendants opposed text messages and work email in some circumstances and preferred mail and limiting returned consent forms to mail.
The court approved plaintiffs’ proposed notice and distribution methods. The parties were ordered to follow the existing deadlines for producing contact information, sending notices, and allowing people to join. Judge Lorna G. Schofield issued the order.
The detailed version
- Navar v. Walsh Construction Company II, LLC · No. 1:18-cv-10476
- Lorna Schofield
- May 28, 2020
Background
The parties had previously addressed conditional certification of a collective under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing employment and wage practices. They agreed on the contents of the notice but disagreed about how to distribute it to potential members and how those people could join the collective.
The Parties’ Proposals
Plaintiffs proposed sending each potential member an email with the notice and a consent-to-join form attached. They also proposed sending a text message referring the recipient to the email, providing plaintiffs’ counsel’s contact information, and linking to a website where the full notice could be reviewed and downloaded. Plaintiffs further proposed allowing consent forms to be returned to their counsel by U.S. mail, fax, or email.
Defendants did not oppose email notice to people for whom they had personal email addresses. They opposed notice by text message or work email and proposed using U.S. mail for people for whom they lacked personal email addresses. Defendants also argued that consent forms should be returned only by U.S. mail.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that notice should be accurate and timely so potential members can make informed decisions about whether to participate. It also stated that courts have substantial discretion over the scope and content of notice and should consider judicial efficiency and reducing individual costs for plaintiffs.
The court rejected the objections to text messages, noting that courts have approved email and text-message notice and that such methods can further the Fair Labor Standards Act’s purpose. The court also rejected the objection to work email, reasoning that emails sent to individuals through work addresses are not more likely to be disruptive than other notice methods. Finally, the court found no reason to limit the ways potential members could return consent forms when email or fax could be less burdensome than mail.
Order and Effect
The court ordered that plaintiffs’ proposed notices and distribution methods were approved. The parties must comply with the deadlines in the court’s earlier order concerning defendants’ production of contact information, distribution of notices, and the period for potential members to join the collective. Judge Lorna G. Schofield entered the order on May 28, 2020.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.