West v. Lasership, Inc.

Background

Daniel West, Romaine Clarke, Ryon Morgan, and Saadala Aboulessan brought a proposed class and collective action against LaserShip, Inc., So Sure Transports, Inc., Richard Grace and Richard LLC, and unnamed entities. They seek unpaid overtime and related relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law. This opinion addresses the claims of West and Clarke; Morgan and Aboulessan’s claims were stayed pending arbitration. So Sure and Richard Grace and Richard LLC were in default, and the claims against Steven Trucking, Inc. had been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.

West worked as a delivery driver for LaserShip and So Sure from December 2018 through May 2020. Clarke worked as a delivery driver associated with LaserShip and Richard Grace and Richard LLC from 2016 until February 2021, with a gap. Both alleged that they worked more than 40 hours per week without receiving required overtime pay. LaserShip disputed the claims and denied liability.

The proposed collective included subcontractor delivery drivers at all nine of LaserShip’s New York locations who worked from June 17, 2018, to the present. Plaintiffs asked the court to conditionally approve the collective, authorize notice to potential participants, require LaserShip to provide their names and contact information, and toll the limitations period.

Legal standard

Under Section 216(b) of the FLSA, employees may bring a collective action on behalf of themselves and other employees who are similarly situated, but other employees must file written consent to join. Courts commonly use a two-step process. At the first step, the court decides whether notice should be sent to potential participants. After more discovery, the court may decide whether the participants are actually similarly situated and whether the collective should continue.

Because the parties had conducted about nine months of targeted discovery, the court applied the Second Circuit’s “modest plus” standard. Under that standard, the plaintiffs had to provide evidence making it more likely that a group of similarly situated workers could be identified through notice. The court would not decide the ultimate merits of the wage claims at this stage.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Plaintiffs had not met that burden. West testified that he did not communicate with other drivers at the Port Chester facility and did not know what they were paid, how many hours they worked, or whether they were treated as contractors or employees. Clarke likewise had not substantively interacted with other drivers at the Queens and Mineola facilities and did not know how they were paid. Neither plaintiff identified a specific coworker who allegedly worked more than 40 hours without proper overtime or described a specific conversation with a coworker about LaserShip’s compensation practices.

The court also noted that the proposed group covered drivers working through many different delivery service providers, which used different compensation arrangements and other service terms. Plaintiffs’ evidence did not establish a sufficient factual connection between their experiences and the experiences of drivers across all nine facilities. The court emphasized that it was not deciding that a collective could never be approved in this case; it concluded only that the evidence was insufficient at that time.

Although the court denied conditional certification, it granted Plaintiffs’ request for discovery of contact information. It found that providing the names and last known addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses of subcontractor drivers at the Queens, Mineola, and Port Chester locations was appropriate, to the extent the information was in LaserShip’s possession, custody, or control.

Disposition

The court ruled that the motion was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART:

The Clerk was directed to close the motion docket entry.