VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of Plaintiff David Roberson's Motion for Issuance of Notice Pursuant to § 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (Doc. # 25), to which Defendant Restaurant Delivery Developers, LLC responded on August 21, 2017. (Doc. # 43).
Roberson worked as a driver for an entity doing business as Doorstep Delivery, using his own car to ferry food from restaurants to hungry people at their homes. Although, among other things, he wore a uniform and worked during set shifts, Doorstep Delivery classified Roberson as an independent contractor — an incorrect classification, Roberson says. He claims that other Doorstep Delivery drivers have also been wrongly classified as independent contractors and would be interested in joining his proposed FLSA collective action seeking overtime and minimum wages. But Restaurant Delivery Developers claims Roberson has not sufficiently shown that it employed him or any other driver or that Restaurant Delivery Developers is, in fact, Doorstep Delivery.
Employing the lenient conditional certification standard and declining to review the merits of the underlying FLSA claims, the Court determines a class of similarly situated Doorstep Delivery drivers that would be interested in joining the collective action exists. Therefore, the Motion is granted.
Roberson initiated this action on March 31, 2017. (Doc. # 1). The Amended Complaint asserts claims under the FLSA, Florida's Minimum Wage Act, and Article X of the Florida Constitution on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals. (Doc. # 23). Specifically, Roberson alleges that he and other delivery drivers working for Doorstep Delivery have been wrongly classified as independent contractors in order to deprive them of overtime compensation and the minimum wage under the FLSA. Additionally, Roberson asserts that he and other Florida delivery drivers have been paid less than the state minimum wage. Roberson filed the instant Motion, seeking to conditionally certify a nationwide FLSA collective action, on July 11, 2017. (Doc. # 25).
Restaurant Delivery Developers filed its Answer on August 7, 2017, in which it maintains that it does not do business as Doorstep Delivery. (Doc. # 42). It then filed a response to Roberson's Motion for conditional certification on August 21, 2017, elaborating further on its contention that it is not the correct defendant for this action, as it never hired Roberson or any other delivery driver. (Doc. # 43). The Motion is now ripe for review.
The FLSA expressly permits collective actions against employers accused of violating the FLSA's mandatory overtime provisions.
Pursuant to Section 216(b), certification of collective actions in FLSA cases is based on a theory of judicial economy by which "[t]he judicial system benefits by efficient resolution in one proceeding of common issues of law and fact arising from the same alleged" activity.
In making collective action certification determinations under the FLSA, courts typically follow a two-tiered approach:
To maintain a collective action under the FLSA, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that they are similarly situated.
At the notice stage, the Court should initially determine whether there are other employees who desire to opt into the action and whether the employees who desire to opt in are similarly situated.
In his Motion, Roberson argues that a similarly situated class of Doorstep Delivery drivers exists across the country and would be interested in joining the collective action. (Doc. # 25). Roberson points outs that
(
Restaurant Delivery Developers does not challenge that a class of similarly situated delivery drivers exists. But Restaurant Delivery Developers still insists Roberson has not met even the lower evidentiary burden to justify conditional certification. According to Restaurant Delivery Developers, Roberson cannot show that a class of similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Restaurant Delivery Developers exists because Restaurant Delivery Developers never hired Roberson or any other delivery driver. (Doc. # 43 at 3). While Roberson and the opt-in drivers may very well work for Doorstep Delivery, Restaurant Delivery Developers insists that it is not Doorstep Delivery and presents affidavits of its members attesting to that. (
Nevertheless, at the conditional certification stage, the Court must not review the merits of the case — including whether Restaurant Delivery Developers is Roberson's "employer," as defined by the FLSA.
Therefore, the Court confines itself to analysis of whether a class of similarly situated Doorstep Delivery drivers exists and whether those drivers would be interested in opting in to the proposed FLSA collective action. The evidence and affidavits provided by Roberson reasonably make the necessary showing: three delivery drivers have opted-in, all of whom were classified as independent contractors, and various delivery drivers have submitted affidavits averring that other delivery drivers would be interested in joining the action. (Doc. # 25 at 10; Doc. # 25-4; Doc. # 25-5; Doc. # 25-6; Doc. # 25-7). Restaurant Delivery Developers has not contested these facts.
And the Court disagrees with Restaurant Delivery Developers' assertion that granting the Motion would be futile as Restaurant Delivery Developers does not know the names or addresses of Doorstep Delivery drivers. (Doc. # 43 at 5). Restaurant Delivery Developers presents no authority for the proposition that a motion for conditional certification may be denied on futility grounds. And there is reason to believe that Restaurant Delivery Developers has access to information regarding drivers' identities. Indeed, the Doorstep Delivery website lists the same four members of Restaurant Delivery Developers as the founders of Doorstep Delivery. (Doc. # 25-3 at 4). And one member of Restaurant Delivery Developers, Daniel Sinor, remarks in his affidavit that "[t]hrough a family corporation, [he] had access to information on some aspects of the restaurant food delivery business" and was able to acquire a copy of Roberson's contract with another company. (Doc. # 43-3 at ¶ 17).
Therefore, a court-approved notice will be sent to Doorstep delivery drivers. What remains to be determined is the form that notice will take.
Roberson has attached a proposed notice to be sent out to other Doorstep Delivery drivers. (Doc. # 25-1). Roberson proposes to send the notice to drivers nationwide who have worked for Doorstep Delivery since March 31, 2014 — three years before this action was initiated. (Doc. # 25 at 14). Restaurant Delivery Developers raises no objections in its response to the proposed scope of the class or the proposed notice.
"Court-authorized notice in a class action context helps to prevent `misleading communications' and ensures the notice is `timely, accurate, and informative.'"
The Court approves the proposed form of the notice submitted by Roberson. (Doc. # 25-1). And the Court agrees that the proposed scope — all delivery drivers who worked for Doorstep Delivery since March 21, 2014 — is appropriate, given Roberson's allegation that Restaurant Delivery Developers willfully violated the FLSA.
The Court also agrees that providing notice via U.S. mail and email is acceptable, with a 90-day period for drivers to send in their opt-in notices after the notices are sent.
But the Court does not approve the sending of follow-up communications by Roberson's counsel to potential opt-in plaintiffs.
Restaurant Delivery Developers is directed to provide a list of the potential opt-in plaintiffs' names, last-known mailing addresses, last-known telephone numbers, email addresses, work locations and dates of employment to Roberson's counsel by October 5, 2017. If Restaurant Delivery Developers is unable to provide such information, Roberson may move to distribute the notice by different means, such as posting notice on the Doorstep Delivery website.
Accordingly, it is now