Anthony v. Full Citizenship of Maryland, Inc., No. 8:2015cv00977 - Document 39 (D. Md. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 11/4/2015. (kw2s, Deputy Clerk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Anthony v. Full Citizenship of Maryland, Inc. Doc. 39 FILED D/~'fR' DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TIlE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND SOl/tltem Dil'isio/l ICT OF MARYLAND 10/5 NOV - 4 P 3: , 5 ClER/'\'S_ OFFICE AT GREU-i3E.LT * GORDON ANTHONY, BY -. * Plaintiff, nn behalf nf himself and all similarly situated individuals, - - ::;:::111'f * * Case Nn.: G.JII-1S-977 v. * FULL CITIZENSHIP MARYLAND, INC., OF ~ * Defendant. * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM Gordon Anthony. Full Citizenship violations of the Fair Lahor Standards of Maryland. Wage and Hour Law ("MWIIL"). 501 elsel{. Wage Payment jtlllow. Plaintiffs NO.2 I) is DENIED Law ("'MWPCL"). or "Dcfcndant"). I'! sel{ .. alleging the Maryland Md. Code. Lab. & Empl. Art.. ~ 3- collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.c. claims as a potential class action pursuant to Federal ("Rule 23"). Pending beltlre the Court arc three motions. The briefed and no hearing is necessary. Motion ftlr Leave to Immediately as moot: Plaintiffs Action and Court-Facilitatcd * Md. Code. Lab. & Empl. Art.. ~ 3-401 el self .. and the ~ 216(b). and his MWHL and MWPCL issues arc sufficiently * situated. has sued his fonner 29 U.S.c. ~ 20 I his FLSA claim as a potential 23(h)(3) * * OPINION Inc. ("'Full Citizenship" Act ("FLSA"). and Collection PlaintitTbrings Rule of Civil Procedure * on behalf of himself and those similarly employer. Maryland * * See L.R. 105.6. For the reasons that Commence Motion ftlr Conditional Notice (ECF No. 28) is GRANTED. Early. Limitcd Discovery Ccrtilication (ECF of FLSA Collectivc and Dcfendant's Motion to Dockets.Justia.com Dismiss and/or Strike Plaintiffs Rule 23 Class Action Allegations and Request for Ilearing (ECF No. 33) is DENIED. I. Backgruund Defendant Full Citizenship services to adult individuals County and Montgomery vocational involved counselor. with disabilities County. provided and assisting them in their janitorial consumers divided PlaintifTs represented counselor. PlaintifTs /d. at 'Ii them to various worksites. of cooking. eleaning and ensuring 'i 17. Plainti 1'1' worked Illr Defendant wages into two primary categories. his time with consumers "Regular" n. hours he worked. /d. at '1/ over time also alleges that all of Delendant's vocational Plaintiff has submitted posting and a copy of Defendant's always paid Plaintiff$9.00 counselors Personnel Plaintiffs $9.60 per hour to $10.65 per compensation of his Motion Illr Conditional than 40 hours per week and were paid according SUPP0l1 this allegation. ti'OIl1 never paid Plaintiff overtime For purposes and "Relict:" at their jobsite and his time with Relief hours. Dclendant at ~ 26. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant that 13. for Regular hours were increased hour. /d. at'i 25. For Plaintitrs and It/. at ~ 14. Plainti If also at their homes. /d. at '1'122-24. During the course of his employment. compensation as a primary job duties work at their worksites. medication. in Prince George's Plaintiff worked f()r Defendant which consisted from June 6. 2010 to March 7. 2015. It/. at which respectively to as "consumers") ~iJ. I at J that provides support and training lI'om their homes. transporting were taking any prescribed Defendant (referred ECF NO.1 in-home services to consumers. consumers company /d. at '1/12. As a vocational picking up consumers monitoring is a Maryland performed per hour. It/. for o\'ertime Certilication. Plaintiff the same job. worked more to the same policy. ECF No. 28 at 2-3. To an aflidavit. Policies. 28-3; ECF No. 28-4. 2 sample paystubs. a sample job ECF No. 28-1: ECF No. 28-2: ECF No. PlaintitT tiled his Complaint on April 5. 2015. ECl' No. I. and tiled an Amended Complaint on May 26. 2015. ECF No. II. On July 22. 2015. Plaintiff tiled a Motion I()r Leave to Immediately Commence Early. Limited Discovery. ECl' No. 21. On August 19. 2015. Plaintiff tiled a Motion for Conditional Certitieation of FLSA Collective Action and Court-Facilitated Notice. ECF No. 28. In its response to Plaintiffs motion. Defendant included a Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike Plaintiffs Rule 23 Class Action Allegations and Request for Ilearing. ECF No. 33. II. Discussion A. Conditional Certification First. the Court considers Plaintiffs Motion t()r Conditional Certitication of l'LSA Collective Action and Court-Facilitated Notice (ECF No. 28). "Under the FLSA. plaintiffs may maintain a collective action against their employer I()f violations under the act pursuant to 29 U.S.C. * 216(b):' QuiJ1leros \'. Spllrkle Clellllill}.!.. /11(' .• 532 F. Supp. 2d 762. 771 (D. Md. 2008). Section 216(b) provides that ..[nJo employee shall be a party plaintiff to any such action unless he gives his consent in writing to become such a party and such consent is tiled in the court in which such action is brought:' 29 U.S.C. * 216(b). "This provision establishes an 'opt-in' scheme. whereby potential plaintiffs must afllrmativcly notify the court of their intentions to be a party to the suit."" Quill/eros. /IIC .• 532 F. Supp. 2d at 771 (citing ClIlllper \'. HOllie QUlIli/y ,1/}.!.I1l/ .. 200 F.R.D. 516. 519 (D. Md. 2000)). "When deciding whether to ccrtify a collective action pursuant to the l'LSA. courts generally follow a two-stage process. In the Ilrst stage. commonly referred to as the notice stage. the Court makes a threshold determination of whether the plaintiffs have demonstrated that potential class members are similarly situated. sueh that eourt-faeilit,ited notice to the putative 3 class members would bc appropriate:' Flores \'. Unify Di.\jJO.l'a1 Recycling. U,C. No. G.lH-15& 196.2015 U.S. Dis!. LEXlS 43889. at *6-7 (D. Md. Apr. 2. 2015) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). In the notice stage. Determinations of the appropriateness of conditional collective action certilieation are len to the court's discretion. The threshold issue in determining whether to exercise such discretion is whether Plaintiffs have demonstrated that potential optin plaintiffs are "similarly situated:' "Similarly situated" does not mean "identical:' Rather. a group of potential FI.SA plaintiffs is "similarly situated" if its members can demonstrate that they were victims of a common policy. scheme. or plan that violated the law. To satisfy this standard. Plaintiffs generally need only make a relatively modest factual showing that such a common policy. scheme. or plan exists. To meet this burden and demonstrate that potential class members are "similarly situated" Plaintiffs must set forth more than vague allegations with meager lactual support regarding a common policy to violate the FLSA. Their evidcnee necd no!. however. enable the Court to determine conclusively whether a class of "similarly situated" plaintiffs exists. and it need not include evidence that the company has a 1'o1111al policy of refusing to pay overtime. Plaintiffs may rely on affidavits or other means. such as declarations and deposition testimony. to make the rcquired sho\ving. Id. at *7-8 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Here. Plaintiff has submitted an Affidavit of Gordon Anthony. ECF No. 28-1. Plaintitrs paystubs. ECF No. 28-2. the Vocational Counselor job description. ECF No. 28-3. and an excerpt li'OillDefendant's Policy Manual. Eel' No. 28-4, to corroborate Plaintitrs Defendant cites to DAnna assertion that the putative class is similarly situated. l'. MIA-COM. Inc. It)r its assertion that the "mere listing of names. without more. is insufficient absent a factual showing that the potential plaintiffs are 'similarly situated:" DAnna \'. MIA-COM. Ilfc .. 903 F. Supp. 889. 894 (D. Md. 1995).1l0\\evcr. PlaintitThas presented more than a "listing of names:' Plaintiffs have made a sufficientlactual showing that the putative class members were all vocational counselors. performed the same job duties at the same worksites. had similar schedules. and were subjected to the same payment scheme. See ECF No. 28 at 6-8. Thus. Plaintiffs have made a "relatively modest lilctual showing" that a common policy. scheme. or plan exists. MlIrro'llIil7 \'. Clll7a/~s. 236 F.R.D. 257. 259 (D. Md. 2006). Additionally. Defendant's arguments that Plaintiff and the putative class were cxempt employees under FLSA. ECF No. 33 at 7. and performed two separate and distinct jobs. ECF No. 33 at 2. relate ..to the merits of certain aspects of Plaintiftrs J claims. which arc not appropriate to resolve at the conditional certification stage:' Bllfler \'. Dir~cfSaf US,/. LLC. 876 F. Supp. 2d 560. 572 (D. Md. 2012). Accordingly. the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs motionlt)r conditional certi Iication.' B. Court-Facilitated Notice District courts have "broad discretion regarding the 'details' of the notice sent to potential opt-in plaintilTs. The overarching policies of the FLSA's collective suit provisions require that the proposed notice provide accurate and timely notice concerning the pendency of the collectivc action. so that potential Plaintiffs can make informed dccisions about whcther to participate:' Flor~s. 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43889. at *15-16 (citations omittcd). Bccause PlaintitThas made a preliminary showing that thc putative class of Defendant's vocational counselors is similarly situated. noticc of this action will be provided in a manner to be agreed upon by thc parties. The opt-in period of forty-live days will commencc when the notice has becn provided to all putative class members. The Court orders counsel for the parties to meet and determine the terms of the notice and mcthod of delivery and submit to the Court. within sevcn days of the date of cntry of this Order. ajoint proposed "Notice of Collective Action:" If the parties arc unable to agrce on 1 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Immediately COlllmence Early_ Limited Discovery. ECF No.2!. is DENIED as moot. Discovery was not necessary for the Court"s consideration of the present motion and the Court will convene scheduling call within fourteen days of this Order to initiate merits discovery in this casco a In his reply in support of his Motion for Conditional Certification. PlainlitTmakes what could be characterized as a counter-proposal regarding the method and content of the nOlice. ECF No. 37-1. It is unclear if this issue is now resolved or if court-intervention may still be required. 2 5 thc tcnns ofthc not icc. cach party should submit thcir proposcd within thc same scven days. along with a mcmorandum noticcs lor thc Court's to the Court explaining dccision. why the parties wcre unable to reach an agrcemcnt. C. Motion to Dismiss Fed. R Civ. P. B(h) claim Defendant contcnds that the class action allcgations should be dismissed stage because it is not the superior method for adjudicating 'opt out class action' class mcmbers. 1-7. Defendant's with an FLSA 'opt in collcctivc both for notice and trial purposcs:' action' Act that prohibits * 12 (D. 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS I 19913. at elect to move for class certification. collective action. any possible Circuit has not directly addressed 001 I' the certification of a at the appropriate juncture:' Id. at * I I. "While the Fourth thc question of whether thc FLSA preempts statc statutory wages. courts in this district and othcr circuits have addrcssed and have held that it docs not:' B/IIII'l'. Thcre are several examplcs including situations Edelen argumcnt I'. thc issue SOO F. Supp. 2d at 671. in the District of Maryland where both a collcctive of both claims procecding action and a Rule 23 class action See Banks \'. Wei Dog. Inc.. 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119913. at defendants' action claims): as well as for conditional omitted). issues that arise with respect to a hybrid action under both thc FLSA and Rule 23 will be addressed of overtime limn maintaining WeI Dog. Inc.. No. RDB-13-2294. 1'. Md. Aug. 28. 2014 ) (citations Plaintiffs (rejecting to potential states li'om ereating a wage rights. or that prevents employecs FLSA claims and MWHL claims in the same suit." Banks were maintained. would lead to conlilsion motion is premature. parallel scheme to protect employees' simultaneously. and having both "an ECF No. 33 at 11-12: see also ECF No. 38 at "There is nothing in the Fair Labor Standards regulation this controversy at this early that plaintiffs' FLSA claims preempted thcir MWIIL class A1/1. Residenlial Sen's .. He. No. DKC 11-2744.2013 6 * I 1-12 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102373. at *12. *20 (D. Md. July 22. 2013) (granting final certification ofa 23(b) class and a FLSA collective class): Quickie)' I'. Un;\'. o(Md. Aled. S)'s. Corp .. No. CCB-12-321. 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131280. at * 16-17 (D. Md. Sept. 14.2(12) (denying defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs FLSA. MWHL. and MWPCL claims): BlI/ler. 800 F. Supp. 2d at 674 (ruling that a collective action under FLSA can be accompanicd by a Rulc 23 class action asserting statc law based claims). The Plaintiffs have suftieiently alleged a Rule 23 class action in their Amended Complaint. See ECF No. 11 at 'i'i 52-84. At thc appropriate juncture. the Court will set a schedule to determine whether Plaintitrs claims mcct the requircments of Rule 23. The merc fact that Plaintiffwishcs to pursuc both a FLSA collective action and a Rule 23 class action is not a sufficient reason to dismiss the latter. Defendant's remaining arguments are best addrcssed alier discovery. As such. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike Plaintiffs Rule 23 Class Action Allegations is DENIED. III. Conclusion For the reasons stated above. Plaintiffs Motion for Lcave to Immediatcly Commcnce Early. Limited Discovery is DENIED as moot. Plaintiffs motion for conditional certification is GRANTED. and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike Plaintiffs Rule 23 Class Action Allegations is DENIED. Additionally. the Court ORDERS eounscl for the parties to mect and determine the terms of the notice and submit to the Court. within seven days of the datc of entry of this Order, ajoint proposed "Noticc of Collective Action" or separate memorandums explaining areas of disagrcement. Dated: November $~- t( . 20 f5 GEORGE J. HAZEL Unitcd States District Judge 7
]]>
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.
