Wood v. Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc.

Background

Donna Wood sued her former employer, Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc., alleging, among other claims, that the campaign violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime while she worked as a field organizer. Other plaintiffs later joined the action. The opinion states that field organizers generally performed voter outreach and volunteer-recruitment work, regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, and were classified by the campaign as exempt from overtime pay. They were typically paid a salary of approximately $6,000 per month.

Wood and the other plaintiffs asked the court to conditionally approve an FLSA collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). They proposed notifying all individuals who had worked as field organizers for the campaign nationwide between November 24, 2019, and the present. More than 100 field organizers had already signed forms joining the case, although no notice had yet been distributed. The campaign’s partial motion to dismiss and motion to stay discovery were pending, but neither motion was decided in this opinion.

Legal standard

At the first stage of the FLSA collective-action process, a court may authorize notice if the plaintiffs make a modest factual showing that they and potential participants were similarly situated and were subject to a common policy or plan alleged to violate the law. This preliminary decision is a case-management tool for sending notice; it does not determine whether the employer actually violated the FLSA. The court does not apply the requirements for a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 class action, and only people who affirmatively join the FLSA action can benefit from any judgment.

After additional factual development and discovery, the court may conduct a more demanding second-stage review of whether the opt-in plaintiffs are actually similarly situated. The opinion states that the action could later be de-certified and the opt-in plaintiffs’ claims dismissed without prejudice if that standard is not met.

Court’s analysis

The campaign argued that the FLSA did not apply because it was not an enterprise engaged in commerce and because the plaintiffs lacked individual coverage under the statute. The court declined to decide those merits arguments at the conditional-approval stage. It also rejected the campaign’s argument that the plaintiffs had to prove an actual FLSA violation before notice could be authorized. At this stage, the relevant question was whether the plaintiffs and potential participants alleged similar violations, not whether a violation had been established.

The court found that the plaintiffs met the modest factual burden. They submitted 23 declarations from field organizers across 15 states. According to the opinion, the declarations stated that the field organizers had similar main duties, were not paid overtime despite working more than 40 hours per week, and observed other field organizers working more than 40 hours without overtime pay. The declarations identified the campaign’s common policy of treating field organizers as exempt from FLSA overtime requirements.

A nationwide field-organizer job posting provided additional support because it described the position’s duties consistently with the declarations. The court also concluded that possible differences in duties, including some event-planning responsibilities, did not defeat conditional approval because the campaign classified field organizers as exempt. The proposed collective was limited to people who held the same field-organizer position, rather than covering employees with a wide variety of positions.

Disposition

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for conditional approval of a collective action as to all field organizers who worked for Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc. The parties were directed to confer about the proposed notice and reminder, and could bring any disagreements about those matters to the court’s attention. The ruling did not resolve the pending partial motion to dismiss or motion to stay discovery and did not decide the ultimate merits of the overtime claims.