Kane v. Ollie's Bargain Outlet, Inc.
| Decision Date | 24 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 1:18-CV-02261 |
| Parties | JOSEPH KANE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OLLIE'S BARGAIN OUTLET, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
MEMORANDUM
Before the court is Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of a collective under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. (Doc. 48.) This action was brought on behalf of a putative collective comprised of Co-Team Leaders ("CTL") employed by Defendant Ollie's Bargain Outlet, Inc. ("Ollie's") from March 12, 2015 to present day. Plaintiffs are six former CTLs who allege that they were misclassified as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA since they largely performed the work of hourly employees, rather than the managerial work listed in Ollie's CTL job description. Two elements of Plaintiffs' case are fatal to the collective's success: (1) disparities exist among the putative collective members, including their locations of employment, their responsibilities at these locations, and their Store Team Leaders ("STL"); and (2) individualized inquiries would be required as to the applicability of FLSA overtime exemptions which would overwhelm and frustrate collective resolution. Because the court finds that Plaintiffs have not shown that they are similarly situated for purposes of collective administration under the FLSA, the court will deny the motion for conditional certification. (Doc. 48.)
Plaintiffs commenced this civil action on March 12, 2018, in the District of New Jersey alleging FLSA violations for unpaid overtime wages and that they were misclassified as exempt under the FLSA's overtime provisions. (Doc. 1, pp. 11-14.)1 This case was transferred to the Middle District of Pennsylvania on November 26, 2018, since Ollie's is the sole defendant and maintains its headquarters in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. (See Docs. 12, 13.) Plaintiffs seek to bring this lawsuit as a collective action on behalf of all CTLs who are or were formerly employed by Ollie's within the three years preceding this lawsuit. (Doc. 1, ¶ 64.)
On February 15, 2019, the parties participated in a case management call with the court, during which their proposed case management plan was reviewed and adopted. (Docs. 30, 31, 32.) As part of their joint case management plan, the parties agreed that limited discovery would occur in connection with Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification. (Doc. 30.) Based on the record before the court, it appears that this limited discovery included significant documentproduction, depositions of three Plaintiffs, the exchange of interrogatories, a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, and the exchange of declarations from Plaintiffs and 56 CTLs employed by Ollie's across various locations and states.
On August 12, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification, attaching various discovery documents in support thereof. (Doc. 48.) Ollie's filed a brief in opposition, also including a voluminous discovery record in support thereof. (Doc. 65.) Plaintiffs timely filed a reply brief. (Doc. 71.) The parties have also filed notices of supplemental authority on March 23, 2020, and April 14, 2020. (Docs. 72, 73, 74.) Thus, the motion for conditional certification is now ripe for review. On November 19, 2019, this case was reassigned to the undersigned.
Ollie's is a bargain retail chain offering reduced prices on brand name merchandise that operates 345 retail locations across 25 states, including Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. (Doc. 65, p. 14.) At each of its retail locations, Ollie's is run by one STL, the equivalent of a store manager; one or more CTLs, the equivalent of an assistant manager; one or more Assistant Team Leaders ("ATL"), one of the individuals supervising the hourlyemployees; various intermediate supervisors; and associate employees tasked with the bulk of the manual labor in each store. (Doc. 48-5, p. 7; see also Doc. 48-26; Doc. 65-12.)
Based on Ollie's job description, CTLs are responsible for, inter alia, assisting the STL with managing payroll budgets, expenses, store banking, shrink reduction,2 and completion of reports; merchandising the store; managing the process of moving freight from the delivery bay to the sales floor within 24 hours of its arrival; ensuring that associate employees are given daily tasks and remain productive; developing and executing plans for coaching, training, evaluating, supervising, and scheduling store associates; recruiting, interviewing, hiring, and onboarding new associates to ensure the staffing needs of the store are met; and performing all STL functions to open and close the store when needed. (Doc. 65-22, p. 1.) In addition, CTLs should be able to "effectively manage in a professional work environment." (Id. at 2.) Ollie's also sets physical requirements for its CTLs, including the ability to lift and carry up to 75 pounds; push and pull up to 35 pounds; stand for extended periods of time; bend and twist frequently; grip and reach with arms and hands frequently; and squat, kneel, balance, and climb occasionally. (Id.)
Plaintiffs are six former CTLs who were employed by Ollie's in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Virginia. (Doc. 52.) Plaintiffs allege that they did not perform the duties enumerated in the CTL job description that pertained to managerial work. (Doc. 1, ¶ 46.) Rather, Plaintiffs claim that the vast majority of their duties as CTLs involved the job description's physical requirements, which coincided with the responsibilities of hourly employees. (Id. ¶¶ 47-49.) Plaintiffs allege that they consistently worked over 40 hours per week, but did not receive additional compensation for this time since they were classified as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA. (Id. ¶¶ 15, 50.) Thus, Plaintiffs assert that Ollie's misclassified them, and all other CTLs, as exempt under the FLSA. (Id. ¶ 66.)
Because the court finds that there are differences between Plaintiffs' self-described job duties, the court includes a brief discussion of each plaintiff below.
Plaintiff Joseph Kane ("Kane") worked as a CTL for a total of 10 months from 2015 through 2016 in stores in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. (Doc. 65-10, pp. 4, 6, 20.) Kane asserts that he consistently worked between 55 and 60 hours per week, but admitted that he did not have any records to corroborate these hourssince he did not keep track of his time.3 (Doc. 48-14, pp. 3-4.) During his time as a CTL, Kane testified that the majority of his working hours were spent running the cash register, cleaning the store, assisting customers, stocking shelves, dropping top stock,4 taking out the trash, unloading freight, unpacking merchandise, recovering the store,5 ticketing freight, loading customer merchandise, building displays in accordance with corporate and STL directives, and working alongside the hourly associate employees. (Id. at 15-16; Doc. 65-10, p. 17.) In other words, Kane posits that he was a CTL in name only—he spent his time performing the same work as hourly employees and relied on the STL to provide him with direction. (Doc. 65-10, pp. 6, 17.)
However, Kane also testified that he performed certain job functions for which hourly employees were not responsible. For example, Kane expressedfamiliarity with labor budgets, testifying that he would draft the first iteration of the schedule for the store based on his store's labor budget. (Id. at 7.) He also attended a hiring fair on behalf of Ollie's where he conducted interviews alongside his STL and recommended individuals for hire; thereafter, he completed onboarding paperwork for these new hires. (Id. at 10-11.) Moreover, Kane testified that he received a bonus of $1,500 based on his store's performance, a perk which hourly employees were ineligible to receive. (Id. at 20.)
Kane's employment was terminated in June 2016 after he admitted to viewing inappropriate adult material on his tablet in the store. (Doc. 65-17, p. 3.) According to his termination paperwork, Kane had received discipline for failing to complete his job duties on two prior occasions. (Id.)
Plaintiff Candi Amuso ("Amuso") became a CTL in February 2016 in North Carolina. (Doc. 48-7, p. 3; Doc. 65-23, p. 22.) She began working at Ollie's in 2013 as a part-time seasonal employee, and was quickly promoted from a full-time seasonal employee, to a full-time employee, to an ATL, and finally to a CTL during the span of three years.6 (Doc. 65-23, pp. 4, 6.) Amuso asserts that she consistently worked between 55 and 60 hours per week, but admitted that she didnot have any records to corroborate these hours since CTLs did not have a time clock.7 (Doc. 48-7, p. 5.) Amuso testified that she performed the same duties at every store in which she worked, spending 98 to 99% of her time running the cash register, assisting customers, stocking, dropping top stock, taking out the trash, unloading freight, unpacking merchandise, ticketing freight, loading customer merchandise, building displays following corporate and STL directives, recovering the store, and cleaning the store. (Id. at 4, 6-8.) Amuso testified that she completed a draft of the employee schedule on a few occasions and completed a safety checklist for the store, but that she largely performed the same work that she did as a seasonal and hourly employee. (Doc. 65-23, pp. 7-10.) Thus, Amuso appeared to engage in few activities in the store without the direction of one of her superiors. (Id. at 19.)
Amuso testified that she took little initiative in her capacity as a CTL, viewed her role in the company as that of a robot, and was largely "committed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial