New York District Court Denies Conditional Certification Of Class Of Café Managers

The United States District Court has rendered a decision that is interesting in at least two respects. First, it is a lengthy and thoughtful opinion denying certification of a putative class of 1,100 café managers under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Second, the court based the decision, at least in part, on the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Encino Motor Cars, LLC v. Navarro, 138 S. Ct. 1134 (2018), which more than arguably altered prior case law requiring FLSA exemptions to be construed narrowly. We previously blogged that decision here.

In Brown v. Barnes and Noble, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-07333 (RA) (KHP) (June 25, 2018), the plaintiffs brought a putative collective action against the Barnes & Noble book chain purportedly on behalf of its café managers. The plaintiffs moved for conditional certification early in the case, which the court denied without prejudice, in part because the plaintiffs had not provided the claimed improper company policies. Following a period of discovery, the plaintiffs then moved again for conditional certification.

The plaintiffs likely believed that the case would be conditionally certified - the Southern District of New York in the past has been a favorable forum for plaintiffs seeking to assert FLSA collective action claims. And exemption claims involving retail or food and beverage managers have proven lucrative for the plaintiffs' bar.

In this instance, however, the court found that the differences among the café managers demonstrated that the claims should not be certified. While some courts apply a minimal standard for conditional certification, in this case, the court viewed such an action is simply a case management tool that will make it more efficient and economical to handle the case.

[t]he Court's power to manage actions before it must be balanced against the purpose of the consent requirement and the general principle that courts should not "use their power for a purpose that neither achieves nor assists the resolution of claims before them." Id. at 178. The ultimate question is whether conditionally certifying a collective action and permitting the plaintiffs to send a court-authorized notice will "make for more efficient and economical adjudication of cases."

The court similarly found that it was the plaintiffs' burden to demonstrate that the case could be resolved by representative proof. The plaintiffs were required to demonstrate that they were subject to a policy or...