Skip to main content

Updated: Judge Decertifies Conditional Class Action Certification Granted to Minor Leaguers


Earlier this month, I had provided an update on a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") suit that had been filed several minor leaguers that claimed they were not paid paid overtime nor minimum wage for their work.  (Readers might remember the suit had received conditional class certification previously.)  In addition, readers might recall that a bill had recently been introduced in Congress which would prohibit minor leaguers from earning minimum wage.  The bill, known as the "Save America's Pastime Act", was quickly met with harsh criticism....so harsh that one of the sponsors of the bill almost immediately withdrew her support of the bill.

In regard to the FLSA suit, however, a federal judge recently decertified the class on the grounds that adjudicating the case on a collective basis would be unimaginable, if not impossible.  In the judge's opinion, he noted that the individual issues that would arise when considering the rate of pay each player received, how many hours they worked, etc were too extensive and varied to group everyone together in a class action.  (Of course, one of the requirements to get a class action certified is the requirement that the issues/facts of the case are "common enough" among the potential members of the class to warrant grouping all the parties together and trying the case as one big group).

This is not necessarily the end of the case, but it certainly makes it harder to proceed as the decertification of the class splinters the potential 2,000 players involved in the suit and would now force them to litigate their claims individually.  Of course, that would likely involve attorney's fees above and beyond what many players could afford.  

Stay tuned to see how this one plays out.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...