United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division
ISAIAH MARTIN, et al., o/b/o themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
SAFE HAVEN SECURITY SERVICES, INC., Defendant.
AND OPINION (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART THE
PARTIES' JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF NOTICE TO PUTATIVE
CLASS, (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR REQUESTED METHOD OF DISSEMINATION
OF NOTICE, (3) DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO PRODUCE INFORMATION,
AND (4) DIRECTING THE PARTIES TO FILE A PROPOSED SCHEDULING
D. SMITH, SENIOR JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
are the parties' Joint Motion for Approval of Notice to
Putative Class (Doc. #44) and Plaintiff's Motion for
Requested Method for Dissemination of Notice to Putative
Class (Doc. #45). For the following reasons, the Court grants
in part and denies in part the parties' request for
approval of their joint proposed notice, and grants in part
and denies in part Plaintiff's request for other methods
of disseminating notice.
September 19, 2019, the Court conditionally certified a Fair
Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) collective action
consisting of all current and former sales representatives
who worked for Defendant at any time from September 19, 2016,
to the present, at Defendant's place of business in
Kansas City, Missouri, who were not properly compensated for
all time worked above forty hours in a workweek. Doc. #43.
The Court directed the parties to jointly or individually
propose the content of the notice and consent to join form,
and the manner and timing of notice.
October 3, 2018, the parties informed the Court that they
agreed on the contents of the notice and consent to join form
but disagreed as to the method of disseminating the notice.
Docs. #44-46. In addition to the parties' joint motion
for approval of the notice (Doc. #44), Plaintiffs also filed
a separate motion requesting approval of their proposal for
dissemination of the notice (Doc. #45). That same day,
Defendant filed its opposition to Plaintiff's motion.
Doc. #46. The Court finds a reply is not necessary.
Content of Notice
proposed notice represents Plaintiffs allege they were not
properly paid overtime for working beyond forty-five hours in
a workweek. Doc. #44-1, at 2, 3. That representation,
however, is not entirely accurate. In the Complaint,
Plaintiffs allege (1) they were not paid “appropriate
overtime” under the FLSA; (2) they “were required
to perform work in excess of forty (40) hours per week,
” and Defendant “failed…to compensate
[them] for this time”; and (3) similarly situated
employees “were required to perform work in excess of
forty (40) hours per week, ” and Defendant failed to
properly compensate them the similarly situated employees.
Doc. #1, ¶¶ 1, 47-55, 61-67. Moreover, Plaintiffs
sought certification of a collective action of “[a]ll
current and former salespeople employees of Defendant who
worked at a Missouri facility and who were not paid adequate
overtime compensation at any time during the last three
years.” Id. ¶ 56; Doc. #2, at 1; Doc. #3,
at 1, 7, 9-10.
Court conditionally certified an FLSA collective action of
all current and former sales representatives who worked for
Defendant at any time from September 19, 2016, to the
present, at Defendant's place of business in Kansas City,
Missouri, who were not properly compensated for all time
worked above forty hours in a workweek. Doc.
#43 (emphasis added). The conditionally certified collective
action is not limited to employees who were not properly paid
overtime beyond forty-five hours worked in a workweek, as the
proposed notice suggests. Thus, the proposed notice does not
fairly and accurately depict the conditionally certified
collective action. See Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. v.
Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 171-72 (1989) (stating the trial
court ensures notification to putative class members is
“timely, accurate, and informative…”).
While Plaintiffs' deposition testimonies indicate they
were properly paid for overtime worked up to and including
forty-five hours, the Court's decision was not based
solely on their testimonies. Accordingly, the notice must be
revised, and all references to “45 hours” must be
changed to “40 hours.”
addition to the foregoing revision, the following changes
must also be made:
• The proposed notice refers to the relevant position as
“Inside Sales Representative” and “Sales
Representative.” Doc. #44-1, at 2. To comply with the
language of the Court's Order and avoid confusion, any
reference to “Inside Sales Representative” must
be revised to “Sales Representative.”
• On the first page of the notice, the FLSA is
referenced for the first time but not spelled out.
Id. “FLSA” must be spelled out.
• Under “How do I join?, ” the putative
collective action member is told he or she needs to fill out
“forms.” Id. at 4. But there is only one
form the individual must execute. To avoid confusion,