Zavala v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
691 F.3d 527 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For final certification of a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), plaintiffs must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that they are 'similarly situated.' Additionally, an employer's policy of locking doors does not constitute false imprisonment if employees impliedly consent by continuing to work under the known policy and a reasonable means of escape, such as an emergency exit, is available.
Facts:
- Wal-Mart engaged numerous independent contractors and subcontractors to provide overnight cleaning services for its stores across the country.
- These contractors hired undocumented immigrants, including the Plaintiffs, to serve as cleaning crew members.
- Plaintiffs alleged they were not paid for overtime work in violation of federal law.
- The employment conditions for the cleaners varied significantly; they worked in 180 different stores in 33 states, for 70 different contractors, with different pay rates, hours, and methods of supervision.
- Wal-Mart provided a detailed 'Maintenance Manual' that established uniform standards and procedures for cleaning its stores.
- Wal-Mart store managers sometimes provided direct instructions to the cleaning crews and, on occasion, exercised the authority to fire individual workers or entire crews.
- For security purposes during overnight shifts, Wal-Mart's policy was to lock the main doors of its stores.
- While managers were not always present to unlock the doors on request, the stores were equipped with marked and functional emergency exits.
Procedural Posture:
- Wal-Mart cleaning crew members (Plaintiffs) filed a class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey for violations of FLSA, RICO, and false imprisonment.
- The District Court granted conditional certification of the FLSA collective action.
- On a motion to dismiss, the District Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' RICO claims but permitted the FLSA and false imprisonment claims to proceed.
- The District Court later granted Wal-Mart's motion to decertify the FLSA collective action, concluding that the class members were not 'similarly situated.'
- Subsequently, the District Court granted Wal-Mart's motion for summary judgment on the false imprisonment claim.
- After the named Plaintiffs' individual claims were settled, the Plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the decertification of the FLSA action, the dismissal of their RICO claims, and the summary judgment on their false imprisonment claims to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are employees who work for 70 different contractors in 180 different stores with varying wages, hours, and supervision 'similarly situated' for the purpose of a final collective action certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)?
Opinions:
Majority - Smith, J.
No. To obtain final certification for a collective action under the FLSA, plaintiffs bear the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that they are 'similarly situated.' Here, the plaintiffs failed to meet this burden because the significant differences in their factual and employment settings outweighed any commonalities. The class members worked in 180 different stores for 70 different contractors, with varying hours and wages. These disparities would necessitate individualized inquiries into liability and damages, undermining the efficiency of a collective action. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' other claims. The RICO claims failed because the plaintiffs did not sufficiently plead a pattern of predicate acts attributable to Wal-Mart itself. The false imprisonment claims failed because the plaintiffs impliedly consented to the locked-door policy by continuing to work with knowledge of it, and the existence of available emergency exits provided a reasonable means of escape, defeating the element of complete confinement.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant precedent in the Third Circuit by defining the standard for final certification of an FLSA collective action, requiring plaintiffs to prove they are 'similarly situated' by a preponderance of the evidence. This raises the bar for plaintiffs, making it more difficult to certify large, geographically dispersed classes of workers, especially in franchise or contractor-based employment models. The ruling emphasizes that even if a common illegal policy is alleged, substantial variations in individual employment circumstances and the need for individualized defenses can defeat certification. The court's application of tort principles also reinforces that consent and the availability of a reasonable escape route are potent defenses to false imprisonment claims in the employment context.
Unlock the full brief for Zavala v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.