Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_18-cv-00580/USCOURTS-ared-4_18-cv-00580-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Denial of Overtime Compensation

---

1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

 WESTERN DIVISION 

TAQUILLA HATCH, individually and 

on behalf of others similarly situated PLAINTIFF 

V. 4:18CV00580 JM 

ARKANSAS TOTAL CARE, INC., 

CENTENE CORPORATION and 

CENTENE MANAGEMET COMPANY, LLC DEFENDANTS 

 ORDER

Pending is the Plaintiff’s Motion for Conditional Certification, For Disclosure of Contact 

Information and to Send Notices. (ECF No. 13). The Defendant has responded and the Plaintiff 

has filed a reply. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part. 

Plaintiff Taquilla Hatch brings this lawsuit on behalf of all former and current Care 

Coordinators for Defendants Arkansas Total Care, Inc., Centene Corporation and Centene 

Management Company, LLC to recover overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the 

FLSA and AMWA. Plaintiff seeks conditional certification of the collective action, disclosure of 

contact information for putative class members, and leave to send a notice to all others similarly 

situated giving them the option to opt in to the case. 

I. Certification

In determining whether this case is appropriate for a court-authorized opt-in notice, the 

Plaintiff must establish that she is Asimilarly situated@ to putative class members for purposes of 

' 216(b). This Court has adopted a two-step approach to determine whether plaintiffs are 

Asimilarly situated.@ 

The first determination is made at the so-called Anotice stage.@ At the notice stage, the 

district court makes a decision,- usually based only on the pleadings and any affidavits 

Case 4:18-cv-00580-JM Document 28 Filed 03/28/19 Page 1 of 4
2 

which have been submittedB whether notice of the action should be given to potential 

class members. 

Because the Court has minimal evidence, this determination is made using a fairly 

lenient standard, and typically results in Aconditional certification@ of a representative 

class. If the district court Aconditionally certifies@ the class, putative class members are 

given notice and the opportunity to Aopt-in.@ The actions proceed as a representative 

action throughout discovery. 

The second determination is typically precipitated by a motion for 

Adecertification@ by the defendant usually filed after discovery is largely complete and the 

matter is ready for trial. At this stage, the court has much more information on which to 

base its decision, and makes a factual determination on the similarly situated question. If 

the claimants are similarly situated, the district court allows the representative action to 

proceed to trial. If the claimants are not similarly situated, the district court decertifies the 

class, and the opt-in plaintiffs are dismissed without prejudice. The class 

representativesBi.e., the original plaintiffsB proceed to trial on their individual claims. 

Collins v. Barney=s Barn, Inc., No. 4:12CV00685 SWW, 2013 WL 1668984, *2 (E.D. Ark. 

April, 17, 2013) (quoting Mooney v. Aramco Servs. Co., 54 F.3d 1207, 1213-14 (5th Cir. 1995)). 

In order to be similarly situated for purposes of ' 216(b), the Court may consider several 

factors including: 1) whether plaintiffs hold the same job title; 2) whether they worked in the 

same geographic location; 3) whether the alleged violations occurred during the same period; 4) 

whether plaintiffs were subjected to the same policies and practices; and 5) the extent to which 

the acts constituting the alleged violations are similar. Smith v. Frac Tech Servs., No. 

4:09CV00679 JLH, 2009 WL 4251017 (E.D. Ark. Nov. 24, 2009). 

Plaintiff requests that the Court certify the following class pursuant to 29 U.S.C. '

216(b): 

All Care Coordinators for Arkansas Total Care, Inc. and Centene

Corporation at any time since August 27, 2015. 

Plaintiff claims that she and all putative class members performed the same or similar job 

duties which inevitably required more than forty (40) hours of work per week. Plaintiff claims 

Case 4:18-cv-00580-JM Document 28 Filed 03/28/19 Page 2 of 4
3 

that the duties performed by her and all of the members of the putative class included providing 

various services, to include traveling to meet clients, assisting clients with day-to-day tasks, 

scheduling and accompanying clients to their appointments and related tasks. Much of the work 

took place at the Defendants’ clients’ locations, although some work was performed at 

Defendants’ office location. Plaintiff claims that they were required to write extensive client 

notes each evening prior to the beginning of the next work day. Plaintiff contends that all care 

coordinators, including Plaintiff and opt-in Plaintiffs, regularly worked more than forty (40) 

hours per week due to the mandatory client note-taking. Plaintiff claims that all Care 

Coordinators were paid by the hour by the Defendants but were not paid any wages for hours 

spent writing the mandatory client notes each evening. 

After carefully considering these factors, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has provided 

enough information to establish that she is similarly situated to the putative class members at this 

stage of the litigation. Accordingly, the Court finds that conditional certification is proper under 

the FLSA for purposes of notice and discovery, and accordingly, certifies the class requested by 

the Plaintiff. 

II. Notice and Disclosure of Contact Information for Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs 

The form of notice proposed by the plaintiff is appropriate and is hereby approved. 

The Court orders the defendant to provide to counsel for the plaintiff the names and 

addresses of all persons who were employed by them as Care Coordinators during the specific 

time within fourteen (14) days from the entry of this Order. Defendant shall provide the 

information in electronic format only if it is currently maintained in electronic format. 

The Court hereby authorizes a ninety (90) day opt-in period from the date the notice is 

mailed. 

Case 4:18-cv-00580-JM Document 28 Filed 03/28/19 Page 3 of 4
4 

The lawyers for the plaintiff are authorized to issue the notice and consent forms by mail. 

They are also authorized to send a reminder postcard thirty days after the initial notice is mailed. 

Plaintiff’s request to provide notice via electronic mailing or text message is denied. 

For these reasons and to the extent stated, plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification, 

for approval and distribution of notice and for disclosure of contact information is GRANTED 

IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of March, 2019. 

______________________________ 

James M. Moody Jr. 

 United States District Judge 

Case 4:18-cv-00580-JM Document 28 Filed 03/28/19 Page 4 of 4