Jackson v. ProAmpac LLC

Background

The plaintiffs brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL) on behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees at ProAmpac’s Walden facility. They alleged that ProAmpac used a time-rounding policy that failed to pay employees for five to fifteen minutes of work before scheduled shifts and sometimes failed to pay overtime for those hours. They also alleged that employees had to purchase replacement steel-toed boots and, for some jobs, tools, reducing their wages below the minimum wage. Finally, they alleged that wage statements inaccurately reported hours worked and did not identify the employer by its legal name.

The pending motions were ProAmpac’s motion to dismiss the NYLL wage-deduction claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and the NYLL wage-statement claim under Rule 12(b)(1), and the plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of an FLSA collective action. The proposed collective covered current and former nonsupervisory employees in the converting or printing departments at the Walden facility from April 15, 2019, through final judgment.

Motion to Dismiss

The court dismissed the NYLL § 193 claim without prejudice. The plaintiffs alleged that required purchases of safety equipment and tools reduced their wages below the legally required minimum, but they did not provide enough detail about the amounts spent, how often the expenses occurred, or how the expenses reduced their wages below minimum wage. The court therefore found that the claim was not stated with sufficient factual detail.

The court also dismissed the NYLL § 195 wage-statement claim without prejudice. The court held that the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged a concrete injury required for constitutional standing. Their allegations that inaccurate statements delayed enforcement of their wage rights did not show that they needed the information for a purpose beyond bringing the lawsuit. The court also determined that the alleged monetary injury was caused by the alleged underpayment, rather than by the inaccurate wage statements themselves.

Conditional Certification

Conditional certification is an initial, limited decision allowing notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs; it does not decide whether the plaintiffs will ultimately win. At this stage, the plaintiffs had to make a modest factual showing that they and potential participants were similarly situated and were affected by a common policy that violated the FLSA.

The court found that the plaintiffs made that showing for current and former nonsupervisory employees in the converting department. Their descriptions of their work, personal observations, and time records supported their allegation that ProAmpac’s rounding policy failed to pay for every minute worked. The court’s review of time records for Jackson, Perez, and Gallardo showed that each worked dozens of hours more than the hours for which they were paid. The court also found that ProAmpac appeared to concede that the rounding policy applied to other converting-department employees.

The court did not conditionally certify the alleged equipment-and-tools claim. The plaintiffs’ statements that they had overheard other workers discuss out-of-pocket expenses did not identify who was overheard, what was said, how much other employees spent, how often they incurred expenses, or how those expenses reduced their wages below minimum wage. The court also declined to include printing-department employees because the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient information about those employees’ duties, supervisors, policies, or working conditions.

Accordingly, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion for conditional certification. The certified collective includes current and former nonsupervisory converting-department employees, but only for claims that ProAmpac failed to pay for all hours worked and failed to pay the overtime premium for unpaid overtime hours. The collective does not include printing-department employees or the claim that ProAmpac failed to reimburse required equipment and tool purchases.

Notice and Case-Management Rulings

The court authorized a three-year notice period, rather than the six-year period requested by the plaintiffs. It also ruled that the three-year period would run from the filing of the complaint, while leaving individual timeliness issues for a later stage.

ProAmpac was ordered to provide plaintiffs’ counsel, by October 16, 2023, with a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet listing the names, last known addresses, last known telephone numbers, last known email addresses, and employment dates of current and former nonsupervisory employees in the converting department who worked on or after April 15, 2019.

The court approved notice by mail, email, text message, and WhatsApp, and approved posting the notice at ProAmpac’s facility. It denied permission to post the notice on plaintiffs’ counsel’s website. The notice could be translated into Spanish, had to include defense counsel’s contact information, and had to explain that participants might be asked to provide information or testimony about their work. Potential participants would have 60 days to opt in, and plaintiffs could send one reminder halfway through that period.

Disposition

The court granted ProAmpac’s partial motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs’ NYLL §§ 193 and 195 claims were dismissed without prejudice. The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion to conditionally certify an FLSA collective action, with the specific inclusions and exclusions described above.