United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division
TAQUILLA HATCH, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated PLAINTIFF
v.
ARKANSAS TOTAL CARE, INC., CENTENE CORPORATION and CENTENE MANAGEMET COMPANY, LLC DEFENDANTS
ORDER
JAMES
M. MOODY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Pending
is the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification,
For Disclosure of Contact Information and to Send Notices.
(ECF No. 13). The Defendant has responded and the Plaintiff
has filed a reply. For the reasons set forth below, the
Motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiff
Taquilla Hatch brings this lawsuit on behalf of all former
and current Care Coordinators for Defendants Arkansas Total
Care, Inc., Centene Corporation and Centene Management
Company, LLC to recover overtime wages and other damages
pursuant to the FLSA and AMWA. Plaintiff seeks conditional
certification of the collective action, disclosure of contact
information for putative class members, and leave to send a
notice to all others similarly situated giving them the
option to opt in to the case.
I.
Certification
In
determining whether this case is appropriate for a
court-authorized opt-in notice, the Plaintiff must establish
that she is “similarly situated” to putative
class members for purposes of § 216(b). This Court has
adopted a two-step approach to determine whether plaintiffs
are “similarly situated.”
The first determination is made at the so-called
“notice stage.” At the notice stage, the district
court makes a decision, - usually based only on the pleadings
and any affidavits which have been submitted whether notice
of the action should be given to potential class members.
Because the Court has minimal evidence, this determination is
made using a fairly lenient standard, and typically results
in “conditional certification” of a
representative class. If the district court
“conditionally certifies” the class, putative
class members are given notice and the opportunity to
“opt-in.” The actions proceed as a representative
action throughout discovery.
The second determination is typically precipitated by a
motion for “decertification” by the defendant
usually filed after discovery is largely complete and the
matter is ready for trial. At this stage, the court has much
more information on which to base its decision, and makes a
factual determination on the similarly situated question. If
the claimants are similarly situated, the district court
allows the representative action to proceed to trial. If the
claimants are not similarly situated, the district court
decertifies the class, and the opt-in plaintiffs are
dismissed without prejudice. The class representatives i.e.,
the original plaintiffs proceed to trial on their individual
claims.
Collins v. Barney's Barn, Inc., No. 4:12CV00685
SWW, 2013 WL 1668984, *2 (E.D. Ark. April, 17, 2013) (quoting
Mooney v. Aramco Servs. Co., 54 F.3d 1207, 1213-14
(5th Cir. 1995)).
In
order to be similarly situated for purposes of § 216(b),
the Court may consider several factors including: 1) whether
plaintiffs hold the same job title; 2) whether they worked in
the same geographic location; 3) whether the alleged
violations occurred during the same period; 4) whether
plaintiffs were subjected to the same policies and practices;
and 5) the extent to which the acts constituting the alleged
violations are similar. Smith v. Frac Tech Servs.,
No. 4:09CV00679 JLH, 2009 WL 4251017 (E.D. Ark. Nov. 24,
2009).
Plaintiff
requests that the Court certify the following class pursuant
to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b):
All Care Coordinators for Arkansas Total Care, Inc. and
Centene Corporation at any time since August 27, 2015.
Plaintiff
claims that she and all putative class members performed the
same or similar job duties which inevitably required more
than forty (40) hours of work per week. Plaintiff claims that
the duties performed by her and all of the members of the
putative class included providing various services, to
include traveling to meet clients, assisting clients with
day-to-day tasks, scheduling and accompanying clients to
their appointments and related tasks. Much of the work took
place at the Defendants' clients' locations, although
some work was performed at Defendants' office location.
Plaintiff claims that they were required to write extensive
client notes each evening prior to the beginning of the next
work day. Plaintiff contends that all care coordinators,
including Plaintiff and opt-in Plaintiffs, regularly worked
more than forty (40) hours per week due to the mandatory
client note-taking. Plaintiff claims that all Care
Coordinators were paid by the hour by the Defendants but were
not paid any wages for hours spent writing the mandatory
client notes each evening.
After
carefully considering these factors, the Court finds that the
Plaintiff has provided enough information to establish that
she is similarly situated to the putative class members at
this stage of the litigation. Accordingly, the Court finds
that conditional certification is proper under the FLSA for
...