Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:10-cv-01384
06-28-2012
JOHNNY ALLEN PORTER, SR., Plaintiff, v. PETROLEUM TRANSPORT, INC., Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court is the plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification and Court-Authorized Notification Pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA [Docket 34]. The defendant filed a response to this motion in which they consent to conditional certification and do not oppose court-authorized notification. (Resp. at 1 [Docket 36]). Its response does, however, object to the plaintiff's request for the social security numbers of potential opt-in plaintiffs and request the opportunity to review and object to the language of the plaintiff's proposed notice. Having reviewed these motions and the appropriate standard for conditional certification and court-authorized notification under Section 216(b), the plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED.
I. Conditional Certification
The Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") allows a court to certify collective actions by plaintiffs who are "similarly situated. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Courts generally use a two-step approach to certify FLSA collective actions. See Purdham v. Fairfax Cty. Public Sch., 629 F.Supp.2d 544 (E.D. Va. 2009); Westfall v. Kendle Intern., CPU, LLC, No. 1:05-cv-118, 2007 WL 486606, at *8 (N.D. W. Va., 2007); Scott v. Aetna Servs., Inc., 210 F.R.D. 261, 264 (D. Conn. 2002) (citing Mooney v. Aramco Servs. Co., 54 F.3d 1207 (5th Cir. 1995); Schwed v. G.E. Co., 159 F.R.D. 373 (N.D.N.Y. 1995). In the first phase of this inquiry a court examines the pleadings and affidavits of the proposed action in search of a "modest factual showing" that the proposed class is similarly situated. See Realite v. Ark Rest. Corp., 7 F. Supp.2d 303, 306 (S.D.N.Y 1998). Once this hurdle has been cleared, a court conditionally certifies the class so that potential plaintiffs may be notified of the pending action and choose to opt-in if they wish to do so.
A proposed class is similarly situated for the purposed of this inquiry when the plaintiff shows "that putative class members were together the victims of a single decision, policy, or plan that violated the law." Reeves v. Alliant Techsystems Inc., 11 F. Supp.2d 242, 247 (D.R.I. 1999) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). The plaintiff has alleged facts indicating that a number the defendant's employees were not paid for hours worked as the result of a policy that violated provisions of the FLSA. (Mot. For Conditional Certification and Ct.-Authorized Notice [Docket 34]). These allegations provide more than a "modest factual showing" that the proposed class is similarly situated. See Reeves, 11 F. Supp.2d at 247. The court hereby GRANTS the plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification and Court-Authorized Notice Pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA [Docket 34].
II. Notice
In their response to the plaintiff's Motion, the defendant request the opportunity to review and object to the language of the plaintiff's proposed notice. Although the plaintiff references a proposed Notice in their Motion, no such proposed Notice appears in the record. The court hereby DIRECTS the plaintiff to submit a proposed Notice to the court and to the defendant within 14 days of the entry of this Order. The defendant shall submit any objections to the proposed Notice within 14 days of the filing of the proposed Notice.
III. Order Compelling Discovery
The plaintiff's Motion also asks the court to order the defendant to produce a computer-readable data file containing the contact information of all potential opt-in plaintiffs, including social security numbers. While the defendant does not oppose this request, it does object to the release of the social security numbers of potential opt-in plaintiffs. Before ordering the release of information about putative class plaintiffs, the party seeking such information for notice purposes must establish a need for that information. See Ruffin v. Entm't of the E. Panhandle, No. 3:11-cv-19, 2012 WL 761659, at *6 (N.D. W. Va., March 7, 2012) (citing Faust v. Comcast Cable Commons Mgmt., No. WMW-10-2336, 2011 WL 5244421, at *6 (D. Md., Nov. 1, 2011)). The court FINDS that the plaintiff has not established a need for the social security numbers of putative class member and that the other information requested is sufficient to provide notice to the opt-in class. For this reason the court ORDERS the defendant to produce, within 14 days of the date of this Order, a computer-readable data file containing all potential opt-in plaintiffs' names, last-known mailing addresses, last-known email addresses, last-known telephone numbers, work locations, and dates of employment.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby GRANTS the plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification and Court-Authorized Notice Pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA [Docket 34]. The court also ORDERS the plaintiff to submit a proposed Notice to the court and to the defendant within 14 days of the entry of this Order. The defendant shall submit any objections to the proposed Notice within 14 days of the filing of the proposed Notice. Finally, the court ORDERS the defendant to produce, within 14 days of the date of this Order, a computer-readable data file containing all potential opt-in plaintiffs' names, last-known mailing addresses, last-known email addresses, last-known telephone numbers, work locations, and dates of employment.
The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party.
ENTER:
________________
JOSEPH R. GOODWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE