Vecchio v. Quest Diagnostics Inc.

Background

Maria Vecchio sued ExamOne World Wide, Inc., ExamOne LLC, and Quest Diagnostics Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing minimum wages and overtime. She alleged that ExamOne failed to pay minimum and overtime wages for work performed as an independent contractor and employee. Nearly 3,000 other mobile medical examiners joined the case.

ExamOne used both employees and independent contractors. Examiners performed medical examinations and related tasks, including travel, contacting patients, preparing paperwork, and processing and shipping specimens. Employees generally were paid fees for procedures and were required to record their time, although the evidence showed that managers gave different instructions about recording travel and pre- and post-examination work. The examiners also differed substantially in how long those tasks took and in whether they recorded their time.

The court had previously allowed the case to proceed as an FLSA collective action after finding a preliminary basis to believe the examiners were subject to a common policy concerning work performed outside recorded hours. After discovery, the defendants moved to decertify the collective and sought partial summary judgment, a ruling that claims cannot proceed to trial because no genuine dispute of important fact exists, on Vecchio’s minimum-wage claims and the overtime claims of 32 opt-in plaintiffs.

Summary judgment on Vecchio’s minimum-wage claims

Vecchio’s expert concluded that Vecchio did not have a federal minimum-wage violation. Vecchio argued that the expert’s analysis was preliminary and that additional information could produce a different result. The court rejected that argument because discovery and the time for expert analysis had already been extended, and Vecchio did not identify evidence that could support a more favorable calculation.

The court also held that ExamOne’s failure to maintain complete time records did not automatically establish Vecchio’s claim. Vecchio still had to provide an estimate of the hours worked and wages owed that could support a reasonable calculation. Her testimony that she worked long hours, without an estimate of the relevant weekly earnings or damages, was insufficient to create a genuine factual dispute. The court therefore granted the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment on Vecchio’s minimum-wage claims, and the final order dismissed those claims with prejudice.

Summary judgment on the 32 opt-in plaintiffs’ overtime claims

The defendants relied on deposition testimony from the 32 identified opt-in plaintiffs. Twenty-two said they had not worked more than 40 hours in a week. Eight could not recall or gave uncertain answers. One said she was neither scheduled for nor recorded as working more than 40 hours, and another said she worked 60 to 80 hours for multiple companies but could not establish how many hours were for ExamOne.

The court held that the plaintiffs’ uncertainty, standing alone, did not create a genuine factual dispute. Vecchio also had not provided other evidence showing that these examiners worked more than 40 hours for ExamOne, and she had not applied her expert’s methodology to them. The court therefore granted the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment on the 32 opt-in plaintiffs’ overtime claims. The final order dismissed those claims with prejudice.

Decertification of the collective action

An FLSA collective action permits workers who are similarly situated to join one lawsuit. After discovery, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing a material similarity—similarity concerning an important factual or legal issue—between the named plaintiff and the opt-in plaintiffs.

The court found that Vecchio had not shown a material similarity across the collective. First, the alleged off-the-clock policy did not apply uniformly. The record showed different instructions from managers, inconsistent enforcement, and differing practices among examiners. Independent contractors were not subject to the employee timekeeping policies, and ExamOne kept no time records for them. The court therefore could not make a collective-wide finding about the accuracy of time records or ExamOne’s knowledge of unrecorded work.

Second, the court rejected Vecchio’s argument that the examiners’ job responsibilities made them sufficiently similar for her expert’s method to estimate everyone’s hours. The expert relied on only 12 depositions, even though 59 plaintiffs had been deposed, and did not explain why those 12 were representative. The testimony also showed wide differences in travel time, examination time, preparation time, and post-examination work. The court concluded that it could not determine the proper hours calculation for nearly 3,000 people in one proceeding.

The court therefore granted the defendants’ motion to decertify the collective. Under the final order, the claims of all remaining opt-in plaintiffs were dismissed without prejudice, meaning those plaintiffs could choose to bring separate claims or form collectives that satisfy the similarity requirement. The court emphasized that decertification did not determine that the opt-in plaintiffs lacked valid FLSA claims.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment and decertification. Vecchio’s minimum-wage claims were dismissed with prejudice. The overtime claims of the 32 identified opt-in plaintiffs were dismissed with prejudice. The claims of all remaining opt-in plaintiffs were dismissed without prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate all plaintiffs except Vecchio and to terminate the listed motions. The court also denied the application for oral argument as moot.