Wood v. Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc.

Background

Plaintiffs brought claims against their former employer, Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc. (the “Campaign”), including claims that the Campaign failed to pay overtime compensation required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs asked the court to conditionally certify a collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and authorize notice to potential participants.

Magistrate Judge Gorenstein granted that request on September 3, 2020. He found that the proposed participants—Bloomberg campaign Field Organizers who worked nationwide between November 24, 2019, and the present—were similarly situated. The evidence included 23 declarations from Field Organizers across 15 states and a job posting. The evidence indicated that the workers shared the same job title and duties and were subject to the same Campaign policy treating Field Organizers as exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime requirements.

Defendant’s Objection

The Campaign timely objected to the magistrate judge’s decision. It argued that the magistrate judge misapplied the collective-action standard by not first deciding whether the plaintiffs’ allegations were legally sufficient to state a Fair Labor Standards Act claim. The Campaign also moved, in the alternative, to stay the sending of court-authorized notice until the district court decided its motion to dismiss.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a district judge may modify or set aside a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive pretrial matter if the ruling is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the Campaign had not shown that Judge Gorenstein’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court explained that the Campaign was improperly trying to apply the standard for a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) to the separate question of whether to conditionally certify a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action.

At this stage, the court said it did not need to decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. Instead, plaintiffs needed to make only a “modest factual showing” that they and potential participants were similarly situated because they were affected by a common policy or plan that violated the law. The Campaign did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting that showing.

Disposition

The court overruled the Campaign’s objection to conditional certification and court-authorized notice. It denied the Campaign’s alternative motion to stay issuance of notice as moot because the court had recently denied the motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Fair Labor Standards Act claims. The order resolved docket entry 151.