Peter Macci On Behalf Of Himself Flsa Collective Plaintiffs And The

Key Facts

Issues

• The court evaluated the proposed geographic scope from the entire State of New York to specific counties. The court limited certification to just the FRG Location on Long Island where Plaintiff was employed, finding insufficient evidence for broader geographic certification.
• The court determined the appropriate time period for the collective action. While Plaintiff sought a six-year lookback from 2018, the court limited certification to the three-year period prior to filing (June 18, 2021 through present) based on the three-year statute of limitations trend in this district.
• The court considered whether to grant Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Collective Action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court found sufficient evidence of common policy violations but limited the certification scope.
• The court addressed notice requirements for potential opt-in plaintiffs under the FLSA. The court ordered parties to meet and confer regarding proposed notice content and submit to the court by January 5, 2026.

Holdings

Remedies

Legal Principles

• At the FLSA collective action certification stage, courts apply a lenient evidentiary standard where they examine pleadings and affidavits but do not resolve factual disputes, decide substantive issues going to the ultimate merits, or make credibility determinations. In determining whether members of an action are similarly situated, district courts typically review several factors, including (1) the disparate factual and employment settings of the individual plaintiffs; (2) the various defenses available to the defendant which appear to be individual to each plaintiff; and (3) fairness and procedural considerations.
• Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) provides employees with a right of action on behalf of themselves and 'others similarly situated.' The Second Circuit applies a two-step test for FLSA collective action certification: the first step involves the court making an initial determination to send notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs who may be 'similarly situated' to the named plaintiffs with respect to whether a FLSA violation has occurred. After a fuller record has been developed, the second stage (known as the 'decertification stage') occurs, wherein the court determines whether the 'opt-in plaintiffs are in fact similarly situated to plaintiffs.' At the certification stage, plaintiffs must make a 'modest factual showing' that they and potential opt-in plaintiffs 'together were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law.'

Precedent Name

• Villalta v. 101-11 86 Ave. Corp.
• Neris v. R.J.D. Constr., Inc.
• Johnson-Cradle v. KPS Affiliates Inc.
• Rafter v. Everlast Sign & Serv. Inc.
• Jibowu v. Target Corp.
• Delk v. Harborview Health Sys. Inc.
• Hoffmann v. Sbarro, Inc.
• Chicas v. Kelco Constr., Inc.
• Laroque v. Domino's Pizza, LLC
• McGlone v. Contract Callers, Inc.
• Myers v. Hertz Corp.
• Agonath v. Interstate Home Loans Ctr., Inc.
• Gonzalez v. Wicked Taco LLC

Cited Statute

• 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(a)
• Fair Labor Standards Act
• Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(a) & (d)

Judge Name

Passage Text

• Plaintiff seeks to certify an action dating back to June 18, 2018 (six years prior to filing of the Complaint) through the present. Defendant objects and argues that the action should be limited to a three-year lookback period. The Court agrees with Defendant. As set forth in Defendant's submission, 'the growing trend in this district appears to be limiting the notice period to three years.' Courts have held that 'overall efficiency concerns' also warrant limitation of claims to a three-year statute of limitations. The Court therefore limits the certification to the three-year time period prior to the filing of the complaint – from June 18, 2021, through the present.
• The Court grants Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify FLSA Collective Action as follows: (1) conditional certification of this action as a representative class action pursuant to the FLSA on behalf of all FedEx drivers employed at the FedEx FRG location only from June 18, 2021 to the present; and (2) the parties shall submit a proposed notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs by January 5, 2026.
• Plaintiff worked only at the FRG Location on Long Island after 2019 and did not work at any FedEx location in New York State. Plaintiff's affirmation includes references to other FedEx drivers... but lacks sufficient information about where they actually worked... Thus, even under the lenient evidentiary standard at the conditional certification stage, Plaintiff's barebones submission fails to satisfy his burden to certify a collective action for all eight counties in the New York metropolitan area. The Court therefore limits the geographic scope of the collective action to just FedEx's FRG Location where Plaintiff was employed.