Coan v. Nightingale Home Healthcare, Inc.

Opinion

ENTRY ON PENDING MOTIONS

Plaintiffs Patricia Coan and Christina Repischak have sued Nightingale Home Healthcare, Inc. for alleged overtime violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. Plaintiffs seek certification of a collective action under the FLSA, an order directing defendant to [*2]  provide their counsel a list of its current and former employees, and approval for a notice to prospective members of the collective action so that they may have an opportunity to opt-in to the case. Defendant opposes the requests.

I. Motion to Certify Collective Action Status

] Pursuant to the FLSA, employees may bring an action for damages on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated if an employer has failed to pay the prescribed minimum wage or failed to pay overtime. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Such collective actions differ significantly from Rule 23 class actions. Potential plaintiffs in a collective action must affirmatively state in writing that they wish to participate in the case. See generally Hoffman-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 107 L. Ed. 2d 480, 110 S. Ct. 482 (1989) (holding that in case governed by § 216(b), district court may order discovery of names and addresses of other employees and direct notice to potential members of collective action). Under the FLSA, no employee shall be a party plaintiff to any collective action unless he or she files a written consent to joinder in the court where that action is pending. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) [*3]  ; Harkins v. Riverboat Services, Inc., 385 F.3d 1099, 1101 (7th Cir. 2004).

] In deciding whether an FLSA action may proceed as a collective action, the court must review the affidavits or other evidence submitted by plaintiffs to decide if they have made an initial threshold showing that they are similarly situated to the employees on behalf of whom they seek to pursue claims. Camper v. Home Quality Management, Inc., 200 F.R.D. 516, 519 (D. Md. 2000). If plaintiffs meet this relatively modest requirement, the court can then approve a notice to be sent to potential plaintiffs who may have been subject to a common policy or plan said to violate the FLSA. The court may reserve any final determination on the issue of whether the employees are similarly situated until later, when more specific information is available. Severtson v. Phillips Beverage Co., 137 F.R.D. 264, 267 (D. Minn. 1991).

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.