Stephens v. Farmers Rest. Grp.
Decision Date | 31 January 2018 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. 17–1087 (TJK) |
Citation | 291 F.Supp.3d 95 |
Parties | Shayn STEPHENS et al., Plaintiffs, v. FARMERS RESTAURANT GROUP et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Gregory K. McGillivary, Theodore R. Coploff, Sarah M. Block, Molly Ann Elkin, Woodley & McGillivary, LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
Joy Catherine Einstein, Meredith Sarah Campbell, Shulman, Rogers, Gandal, Pordy & Ecker. P.A., Potomac, MD, for Defendant.
Plaintiffs, eight current and former servers at five restaurants operated by Defendants, claim that Defendants violated federal and state laws concerning the minimum wage, overtime pay, and sick leave. In the instant motion,1 Plaintiffs seek conditional certification of an opt-in collective action under federal and D.C. law. For reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the motion in part and deny it in part. Conditional certification will be granted, with the following limitations:
First, the putative class is limited to servers.
Second, conditional certification is not granted with respect to the following factual allegations: (a) Plaintiffs' "homework" allegations; (b) Plaintiffs' allegations regarding uncompensated time at pre-shift meetings insofar as they relate to the Founding Farmers Tysons restaurant in Virginia; and (c) Plaintiffs' allegation that Defendants failed to aggregate hours worked at different restaurants for overtime purposes.
Third, the putative class will be divided into three sub-classes, one for each of the three relevant jurisdictions (the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia).
Fourth, Defendants will be required to produce names, mailing addresses, and email addresses for notice purposes within the next twenty days but, absent a further order of the Court, will not be required to produce telephone numbers or to include notices with paychecks mailed to employees. The opt-in period will last sixty days from when notice is sent.
Fifth, the Court does not approve Plaintiffs' proposed form of notice (Pls.' Br., Ex. A, ECF No. 14–1). Instead, the Court will order the parties to meet, confer, and submit to the Court a revised form of proposed notice consistent with this Opinion by February 9, 2018.
Defendant Farmers Restaurant Group operates five restaurants in the D.C. metropolitan area: three in the District of Columbia (Founding Farmers DC, Farmers Fishers Bakers, and Farmers & Distillers), one in Maryland (MoCo's Founding Farmers), and one in Virginia (Founding Farmers Tysons). ECF No. 5 ("Am. Compl.") ¶ 3. Plaintiffs allege that the two individual Defendants, Daniel Simons and Michael Vucurevich, own Farmers Restaurant Group. Id. ¶ 8.
Plaintiffs, eight current and former employees at the restaurants, claim that Defendants' conduct violated the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"),2 Am. Compl. ¶¶ 45–59, the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the D.C. Minimum Wage Act ("DCMWA"),3 Am. Compl. ¶¶ 60–74, the sick leave provisions of the D.C. Accrued Sick and Safe Leave Act of 2008 ("Sick Leave Act"),4 Am. Compl. ¶¶ 75–78, the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Maryland Wage and Hour Law,5 Am. Compl. ¶¶ 79–94, and the payment requirements of the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law,6 Am. Compl. ¶¶ 95–101. Plaintiffs have brought their case as a putative opt-in collective action under the FLSA and D.C. law, id. ¶¶ 10–15, and as a putative Rule 23 opt-out class action under D.C. and Maryland law, id. ¶¶ 16–32. The instant motion relates only to Plaintiffs' proposed collective action, and accordingly Plaintiffs' Maryland-law claims are not relevant to the issues presently before the Court.
Plaintiffs claim that Defendants engaged in the following allegedly improper employment practices:
Defendants allegedly applied these practices to the named Plaintiffs and to similarly situated employees, namely "servers, wait staff, and bartenders." Id. ¶ 14.
Since the Amended Complaint was filed, Plaintiffs have submitted opt-in consents from five additional putative class members that seek to participate in the action. See ECF Nos. 9, 25.
Seven of the eight named Plaintiffs have submitted declarations in support of the motion.7 The declarations explain that each Plaintiff either previously worked or still works as a "server" at one (or, in some cases, two) of the restaurants, with each Plaintiff's tenure beginning at some point since March 2015 and lasting for various lengths of time. See Calvillo Decl. ¶ 1; Clark Decl. ¶ 1; Krohn Decl. ¶ 1; Pitt Decl. ¶ 1; Stephens Decl. ¶ 1; Storey Decl. ¶ 1; Willig Decl. ¶ 1. Four named Plaintiffs worked at two restaurants, and each such Plaintiff claims that the same policies applied at both restaurants. See Calvillo Decl. ¶¶ 1–2; Clark Decl. ¶¶ 1–2; Pitt Decl. ¶¶ 1–2; Stephens Decl. ¶¶ 1–2. Only Plaintiff Calvillo worked at the Maryland restaurant, MoCo's Founding Farmers, see Calvillo Decl. ¶ 1, and only Plaintiff Storey worked at the Virginia restaurant, Founding Farmers Tysons, see Storey Decl. ¶ 1.
The declarations attest to each Plaintiff's knowledge of the allegedly unlawful practices at the restaurants. These declarations track the allegations in the Amended Complaint in most, but not all, respects.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Camara v. Mastro's Rests. LLC
...2012). Courts have applied the same two-stage analysis to certification decisions under the DCMWRA. See Stephens v. Farmers Restaurant Group, 291 F.Supp.3d 95, 105–06 (D.D.C. 2018) ; Castillo, 517 F.Supp.2d at 445 n.3. As the parties assume the standards are the same, see Pl. Mot. at 14–15 ......
-
Hu v. K4 Sols.
...§§ 32-531.02-.08. To plead a claim under the Act, a plaintiff must be eligible for and denied sick leave. See Stephens v. Farmers Rest. Grp., 291 F. Supp. 3d 95, 118 (D.D.C. 2018). Hu does not allege she was denied sick leave, but rather that the Defendants interfered with her leave by firi......
-
Graham v. Famous Dave's of Am., Inc.
...the three-year statute of limitations will apply as it relates to potential class certification. See Stephens v. Farmers Restaurant Group, 291 F.Supp.3d 95, 120 & n. 21 (D.D.C. 2018) (applying the three-year period in the conditional certification stage as Defendants failed to argue Plainti......
-
Meyer v. Panera Bread Co.
...claims to be brought ‘[c]onsistent with the collective action procedures of the Fair Labor Standards Act.’ " Stephens v. Farmers Rest. Grp. , 291 F.Supp.3d 95, 106 (D.D.C. 2018). Unlike classes formed pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in which "potential class mem......