BELL v. CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. et al, No. 2:2010cv00320 - Document 110 (W.D. Pa. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM and ORDER denying 87 Motion to Certify Class, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and 89 Motion to Certify Class, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 6/6/11. (map)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
BELL v. CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. et al Doc. 110 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JUSTIN BELL and KEITH COSTANZA on behalf of themselves and similarly situat employees, aintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 10-0320 CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., RBS CITIZENS, N.A. d/b/a CITIZENS BANK, CITIZENS BANK OF PENNSYLVANIA d/b/a CITIZENS BANK, Defendants. MEMORANDUM Gary L. Lancaster, Chief Judge. June 6, 2011 This is an action brought pursuant Standards Act of 1938, Pennsylvania ("PMWA"), Laws ch. Minimum Wage Act, 201, § 43 (" FLSA"), et P.S. § Fair Labor 333.101, and the Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wage Act, 151, § lA & IB Kei th Costanza, employees, de 29 U.S.C. to the ("MMFWA"). Plaintiffs, et Mass Gen. Justin Bell and on behalf of themselves and similarly situated bring a class/ collecti ve ndants, Citizens Financial Group, Bank of Pennsylvania improperly the ("Citizens"), classifying assistant lawsuit alleging RBS Citizens, have a branch that and Citizens standard practice of managers ("ABMs") as Dockets.Justia.com exempt from MMFWA. the overtime requirements of the FLSA, PMWA, and intiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, pay and prejudgment interest, liquidat back Ie damages, and t and attorneys' fees and costs. suant Plaintiffs have moved for class certification to ral Rule of Civil Procedure 23 [Doc. No. class certification hearing was held by the court on March 25, 2011. court and raised incompatibil sua MMFWA sponte y of actions sta te wage laws. certify the under the PMWA A The 87] ("Rule 23") at dual For t [Doc. the filed 89] . No. hearing the under both potential the FLSA and low we will not reasons set forth Rule 23 classes. BACKGROUND 1. Justin Bell was approximately October, located in izens as 2007 until August, Monroeville, an .ABM employed by Citizens PA. from Keith an ABM from 2008 in a bank branch Costanza approximately as was employed October, 2004 by until August, 2009 in two different bank branches in Boston, MA. Plaintiffs allege that their imary ies did not lude exempt duties such as managing either of their assigned bank branches or any departments or subdivisions of those bank branches. their time Plaintiffs forming allege the that same 2 they spent non-exempt the duties majority as of hourly personal ban allege that hire or rs t tellers at the Plaintiffs branches. y did not have the authority to do as fire hiring, and other firing, employees; advancement make or recommendations other changes follows: as in to empl s' status; perform job evaluations of other employees; adjust rates of payor hours of work for other emplo other empl business si work in relation to of anchi exercise direct the work of eSi management or general t ir judgment with respect to significant matters; or rna or discret decisions regarding the branch's financial budget. Pla in iffs were paid a weekly salary and often worked excess of 40 hours estimated 45 to 50 contends he wor Plaintiffs per hours wee k. in a Bell typical contends he workweek. worked an Costanza an estimated 45 hours in a typical workweek. did not receive any compensation for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Citizens Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New Hampshire, contend New York, that Citizens classifying all ABMs ABMs spending a exempt operates personal as bank Delaware, Connecticut, Rhode Island, has a overtime branches and Mas sachuset ts, and Vermont. corporate wide exempt large percentage of their t banker throughout teller related it e practice a rna j 0 r i t Y of 0 f performing non duties, opening new accounts and handling customer business. 3 Plaintiffs including Specifically, plaintiffs all that Citizens s olated the PMWA and MMFWA as follows: (1) Citizens uniformly classified state overt laws; ABMs (2) Citizens maintained a standardized description the ABM position; exempt from job title and job ABMs routine spent approximately 80% to 100% of their t rforming non-exempt personal banker and teller duties; (3 ) (4 ) ABMs and routinely worked more t n In submitted declarat Pennsylvania, of support this submitted 51 submitted 32 de worked by 87.56%. rations t week; compensate have plaintiffs declarations 51 average percent of t was did not contention, The average number of hours worked by duties in a from over 80 putative class members. plaintiffs was 48.46, and hours 40 ABMs were all paid a salary that them r overtime worked. (5 ) hours as 32 average percent of time from For ABMs. For ABMs. Pennsyl ABMs spent performing non- Massachusetts, The average was iffs p number 49.72, and of Massachusetts ABMs the spent perfo ng non-exempt duties was 88.91%.1 Plaintiffs also st that the court take note that Citizens recently reclassifi a large number of ABMs as non-exempt, and modified the job duties of other ABMs to increase their supervision and responsibilities. Ci tizens contends t t any staffing changes it made are irrelevant to class certification. [Doc. Nos. 104 and 105]. 1 4 ions for ABM job Plaintiffs also submitted job descr vacancies Delaware, post in New Pennsylvania, York, Massachusetts, Each job posting describes the same and New Jersey. position and duties: Overall responsibility for daily operations, including management of Teller (including Tel r Manager) and Customer Se ce staff to a Tier II branch. P sales leadership to ensure franchise growth through rsonal example and regular monitoring of team sales results. Under guidance of Branch Manager may re, fire, and counsel staff. ews teller work schedule. Schedules Bankers/Customer Service Representati ves to ensure adequate coverage. Respons Ie for ing branch compliance with all bank policies and procedures and res branch r internal audits. Monitors branch service quality levels and coaches staff to achieve appropriate levels. Responds to complex customer complaints and questions. Coordinates special events such as Customer Appreciation Day. Opens and/or closes branch. Reports to Branch Manager. C izens admits that regardless of branch location, as exempt from overt Citizens also does accurately descr contends t all ABMs are a sa ry, and that all ABMs are classified requirements under the not paid contest that the PMWA and MMFWA. above job posting s the job duties of an ABM; however, Citizens their policy is compliant with applicab laws. Citizens contests class certificat pursuant to Rule 23 on the grounds of that it is the decision the individual Branch Managers in control of their individual branches to depart with Ci tizens' lawful policy, and such decisions are not driven from 5 any centralized corporate or policy job boilerplate descriptions. II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff Justin Bell commenced this 10, 2010 seeking reI f under the FLSA. 29, Justin 2010, amended plaintiffs Bell class/collective action the FLSA, PMWA, and MMFWA. action on March [Doc. No.1]. and Ke complaint [Doc. No. 12]. h On Ap Costanza seeking filed relief 1 an under Plaintiffs moved for conditional certification for a collective action under the FLSA on June 16, court 2010. entered [Doc. an conditional certi No. order 20]. On September 2, granting plaintiffs' 2010, this motion for cation for a collective action under t FLSA for the following class: "All Assistant Branch Managers employed at Citizens Bank retail branches during any workweek since March 10, 2007 who were paid a salary and classifi exempt from the FLSA's overtime pay mandates. On October ABMs. 6, 2010, notices were mailed to by Defendants as [Doc. /I 2,669 No. 55]. identified The consent deadline to become a party plaintiff was set for December 6, plaintiffs' 2010. FLSA aim. Approximately 479 individuals opted into [Doc. Nos. 3-7, 13-15, 66, 68-73, 76, 80 82, 85, 92-93]. aintiffs filed motions for class certification under the PMWA and MMFWA on December 19, 2010. 6 [Doc. Nos. 8 and 89]. Plaintiff Justin Bell seeks Rule 23 llowing class: "All Citizens Bank retail workweek since March Assistant branches 10, 2007 r ass certification Branch in Managers employed Pennsylvania who were paid the at during any salary and a assified by Defendants as exempt from the PMWA's overtime pay mandates." The potential PMWA class consists of [ Do c. No. 12]. approximately 853 individuals. Plaintiff certification Managers for Keith the employed [Doc. No. 88 1]. Costanza following at seeks class: Citizens Rule "All Bank 23 class Assistant Branch retail Massachusetts during any workweek since March 10, paid a salary and classified by Defendants as [MMFWA]'s overtime pay mandates." [ Do c . branches 2008 who were exempt No. in from the 12]. The potential MMFWA class consists of approximately 674 indi duals. [Do c. No. 8 8 -1] . On plaintiffs' March 25, 2011, motions for Rule PMWA and MMFWA. this 23 court class held a hearing certification under on the [Do c. No. 103]. III. DISCUSSION Plaintiffs have moved for both opt-in FLSA collective action certification and opt-out certification in the same case. 2011 hearing on aintiffs' Rule 23 class action As addressed at the March 25, motions 7 for class certification under the PMWA and MMFWA, created by bringing we find that a potential conflict is the federal and state Neither party has expressly addressed actions in the same case. the potential incompatibility of actions dual the FLSA However, and state collective/class wage laws in their filed under both respective briefs. we will address this issue sua sponte because we find the issue of incompatibility to be of significant me The addressed Court the of Appeals issue of for the Third incompatibility t. Circuit of FLSA has not collective actions that are filed in conjunction with Rule 23 class actions where the plaintiff pled original over the state law class action. provided guidance in De 301 (3d Cir. 2003), matter However, v. A~encio subject jurisdiction the court of appeals Tyson Foods, Inc., 342 F.3d when it determined that the district court did not properly exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law opt-out action that was opt-in action. The in conjunction with an FLSA Id. at 312. court mandate an opt-in c decision." filed Id. at of appeals stated that the decision to ss or an opt-out class is a "crucial policy 311. The court of appeals then found that the "inordinate size of the state-law class, the different terms of proof required by the implied contract state law claim, and the general federal interest in opt in wage actions" caused the state law claims to predominate. 8 Id. at 312. There fore, the court of appeals discretion court of in exe that sing appeals state-law t held the supplemental characterized class district action abused its rd. The jurisdiction. plaintiffs' in court attempt conjunction to certify t FLSA with collective action as a "second line of attack when the FLSA opt in pe od yielded a smaller than desired federal class." While De Asencio directly address t Asencio, the provides the necessitate instant same the Additionally, matter invo the sister does same allegations di scovery, not Unli De overtime cIa All of the claims and would testimony, appear and to witnesses. gal analysis would appear to be the same for district incompatibility the and state law. factual same s all claims set forth in this case. our it question now before this court. presented under both federal involve direction, rd. courts, issues that Accordingly, we must look to many are of very which similar have to addressed the instant matter. er the court of appeal s' numerous district courts within Appeals parallel the in De Asencio, Court of jurisdiction of t the Third Circuit have dismissed state claims that federal inherent claims set L.P., forth in incompatibility between and opt-out class actions. Co., deci sion 527 F.Supp.2d See e.g. 439, 452 9 the same case because of opt-in collective actions Ellis v. Edward D. Jones & (W.D. Pa. 2007); Woodard v. FedEx Freight East, Burkhart-Deal 2357735, at Stem, *2 457 Hewitt v. Inc., (W.O. Pa. F.Supp.2d Associates, 11, June 522, Inc., Aug. 06-166, (D.N.J. Co., U.S.A. July 17, Inc., 2008) Rule 2006); No. (allowing 23 class concerns); (7th Cir. Himmelman v. Inc. , Pa. 07-1747, Pa. 2008); 2008 2006); 2006 WL Aug. 04 - 4100, 07 1687, the 2347875, at 11, action No. 2006); Aquilino 2006 WL 2023539 , WL 4279818 led FLSA col move to *2 at * 3 -A-Car 2008 dual WL Pocono Health Continental Cas. Co., ------------------------ (D.N.J. No. (M.D. Otto v. (M.D. 06-267, at *2 No. 2008); 524 190 2006); but see Ervin v. 2011) 178, Inc., 5, No. 2006 WL 2347873, Home F.R.D. Citifinancial, (D.N.J. v. 250 (W.O. cti ve forward Pa. action spite OS Restaurant Services, Sept. Inc., 12, and compat 632 the ility F. 3d 971 (rejecting the inherent incompatibility argument and finding that the FLSA does not prevent state law claims for related relief to be In 1947, FLSA desired "absent Congress enacted the opt-in provision of the response "a national emergency spawned by out-of-control litigation Ellis, led in the same federal proceeding). of 527 to employee F.Supp.2d control individuals minimum at the 450 of not requiring p intiffs to opt-in 10 overtime their Otto, to claims." omitted). litigation have wi thout their input or know ledge. " By and (citations volume would wage and Congress ensure rights that litigated 457 F. Supp. 2d at 524. the collective action, Congress intended affirmatively to limit asse right,' to and by affected 'free [ Roche, 493 FLSA 'in of 173 165, (1989)). Congress litigation purpose of such lly created claims a their own of (quoting By adding the lling under the mechanism that avoids representative through those burden the opt-in requirement to wage and overtime claims FLSA, to 527 F.Supp.2d at 451 Ellis, U.S. claims employees employers representative actions.'" Hoffmann-La "private opt-out actions. lowing a Rule 23 opt-out action to proceed in the same lawsuit as an opt-in FLSA action would allow plaintiffs to evade the requirements of the FLSA by permitting litigation through a representative action and bringing unnamed plaintiffs into would FLSA the lawsuit. Otto, "essentially opt-in 457 nullify scheme and Congress's would FLSA]'s opt-in requirement." Owe n s - I 11 in 0 is, that there is a "fundamental, 523. Moreover, intent" "eviscerate the creating purpose of it the [the at 524; see also Id. 5 13 F. 2 d 2 8 6 , 2 8 8 Inc., the class action F.Supp.2d at ( 5th Ci r . 1 97 5 ) irreconcilable dif ( s t at in g rence between scribed by Rule 23 and that provided for by the FLSA"). Accordingly, courts within the Third Circuit, we agree with the majority of jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals and find that the 11 incompatibility dist ct for the between the opt-in that collective the p action intiffs' and the Rule 23 opt-out claims class cannot action proceed aintiffs' pursuit subsequent to collective action [because] the close to class be certi cation under the of opt-in period We for merely a "second line Rule 23 FLSA attack the FLSA opt in period yielded a smaller than sired De Asencio, 342 F.3d at 312. Conclusion Accordingly, we will deny plaintiffs' class certification pursuant to Rule 23, the class of federal class." IV. of as such aims. actions in so far as they overlap with their FLSA find is Pennsylvania and Massachusetts An appropriate order lows. 12 r which seek to certify classes claims. motions for state law wage IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JUSTIN BELL and KEITH COSTANZA on behalf of themselves and simi ly situated employees, Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 10-0320 CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., RBS CITIZENS, N.A. d/b/a CITIZENS BANK, CITIZENS BANK OF PENNSYLVANIA d/b/a CITIZENS BANK, Defendants. ORDER AND consideration NOW, of this plaintiffs' p~ day of motions June, class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 2011, upon certification [Doc. Nos. 87 and 89], IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motions are DENIED. BY THE COURT: --F------1---=-e_AA/~_, cc; All Counsel of Record C. J.
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
