Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_22-cv-00943/USCOURTS-azd-2_22-cv-00943-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Maricopa County Special Health Care District
Defendant
Maria Robinson
Plaintiff
Valleywise Health
Defendant

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Maria Robinson,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Maricopa County Special Health Care 

District,

Defendant.

No. CV-22-00943-PHX-DWL

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a 

collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). (Doc. 33.) For the 

following reasons, the motion is granted.

BACKGROUND

On June 1, 2022, Plaintiff initiated this action. (Doc. 1.)

On February 21, 2023, after a series of amendments, Plaintiff filed her operative 

pleading, the third amended complaint (“TAC”). (Doc. 31.) 

The TAC alleges as follows. From October 2021 to February 2022, Plaintiff was 

employed by Defendant Maricopa County Special Health Care District d/b/a Valleywise 

Health. (Id. ¶ 16.) Defendant uses timekeeping software and hardware operated and 

maintained by a nonparty entity called Kronos. (Id. ¶ 35.) “On or about December 11, 

2021, Kronos suffered a disruption in service due to a ransomware attack,” causing a 

“service outage” that affected Defendant and “many other organizations across the United 

States.” (Id. ¶¶ 1, 36.) “For at least a portion of time following the Kronos outage, 

Case 2:22-cv-00943-DWL Document 57 Filed 09/30/23 Page 1 of 26
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[Defendant] failed to keep accurate track of the hours” worked by Plaintiff and other 

employees and instead “estimated the number of hours” worked, including by

“duplicat[ing] paychecks from pay periods prior to the Kronos outage.” (Id. ¶¶ 38-40.) 

“As a result of [Defendant’s] failure to accurately track the actual hours worked each week, 

employees who were non-exempt,” including Plaintiff, “were in many cases paid less than 

the hours they worked in the workweek, resulting in a failure to pay minimum wages and/or 

overtime hours.” (Id. ¶¶ 41-44.) “Instead of paying [Plaintiff] for the hours she actually 

worked, including minimum wages, [Defendant] simply paid based on estimates of time or 

pay, or based upon arbitrary considerations other than [Plaintiff’s] actual hours worked and 

regular pay rates, in multiple workweeks.” (Id. ¶ 45, emphasis omitted.) Plaintiff alleges 

that “[i]t was feasible” for Defendant to “have its employees and managers report accurate 

hours so they could be timely paid the full and correct amounts of money they were owed,” 

but Defendant “chose not to do that.” (Id. ¶¶ 56-57.)

On the same day she filed the TAC, Plaintiff filed the pending motion for 

conditional certification. (Doc. 33.) There, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant “claims it found 

out about the outage on December 12, 2021, and had its access to Kronos restored on 

January 19, 2022,” such that “the outage affected at least three pay periods”—the pay 

period beginning November 28, 2021 (PP #25), the pay period beginning December 12, 

2021 (PP #26), and the pay period beginning December 26, 2021 (PP #1). (Id. at 2.) 

Plaintiff further asserts that Defendant “adopted uniform policies” as to how to handle 

paying its employees during the outage. (Id.) Specifically, Defendant “took the preceding 

pay period, PP #24, which began on November 14, 2021, and contained the Thanksgiving 

holiday, and duplicated it for at least each of pay periods numbered 25 and 26,” even though 

Defendant “knew and acknowledged that the amounts that workers were paid ‘may not be 

reflective of the actual work performed during [each] pay period.’” (Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiff 

further asserts that Defendant promised that once Kronos was able to provide data for hours 

worked during the service outage, Defendant would “pay what [they] have underpaid” by 

September 30, 2022—many months after the pay periods at issue. (Id. at 3.)

Case 2:22-cv-00943-DWL Document 57 Filed 09/30/23 Page 2 of 26
- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On March 7, 2023, Defendant filed an answer to the TAC. (Doc. 38.) In its answer, 

Defendant states, inter alia, that it “used alternative methods other than Kronos-based 

systems to accurately determine the number of hours and wages for its employees during 

the Kronos outage including, but not limited to, using prior pay periods to estimate hours 

and wages” and adds that it “requir[ed] employees to manually track and submit any 

additional hours that the employees worked.” (Id. ¶ 40.)

On March 14, 2023, Defendant filed a response opposing Plaintiff’s motion for 

conditional certification. (Doc. 39.) 

On March 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply. (Doc. 45.) 

On August 9, 2023, Plaintiff submitted a notice of supplemental authority, attaching 

a decision from the Western District of Arkansas that was issued after the conditional 

certification motion became fully briefed. (Doc. 52.)

On August 14, 2023, Defendant filed a response to the notice of supplemental 

authority. (Doc. 53.)

On September 27, 2023, the Court issued a tentative decision. (Doc. 55.)

On September 29, 2023, the Court heard oral argument. (Doc. 56.) 

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard

The FLSA provides “similarly situated” employees with the “right” to bring a 

collective action against their employer:

An action . . . may be maintained against any employer . . . by any one or 

more employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves and other 

employees similarly situated. No employee shall be a party plaintiff to any 

such action unless he gives his consent in writing to become such a party and 

such consent is filed in the court in which such action is brought. . . . The 

right . . . to bring an action by or on behalf of any employee, and the right of 

any employee to become a party plaintiff to any such action, shall terminate 

upon the filing of a complaint by the Secretary of Labor . . . .

29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

The seminal Ninth Circuit case regarding FLSA collective actions is Campbell v. 

City of Los Angeles, 903 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2018). In Campbell, the Ninth Circuit 

Case 2:22-cv-00943-DWL Document 57 Filed 09/30/23 Page 3 of 26
- 4 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

explained that, under § 216(b), “workers may litigate jointly if they (1) claim a violation 

of the FLSA, (2) are ‘similarly situated,’ and (3) affirmatively opt in to the joint litigation, 

in writing.” Id. at 1100. The court further explained that this right “has two permutations”: 

(1) “[t]he right . . . to bring an action by or on behalf of any employee”; and (2) “the right 

of any employee to become a party plaintiff to any such action”—“that is, the right to bring 

the collective litigation and the right to join it.” Id.

Turning to the procedures and standards governing FLSA collective actions, the

Campbell court noted that a judicially-crafted “two-step ‘certification’ process” had 

become “near-universal” and therefore chose to “adhere” to the terms “preliminary 

certification” and “decertification” in the FLSA context because they are “widespread,” 

with the caveat that adherence to this terminology does not “imply that there should be any 

particular procedural parallels between collective and class actions.” Id. at 1100-02. The 

court further clarified that, under the two-step certification process, “plaintiffs will, at some 

point around the pleading stage, move for ‘preliminary certification’ of the collective 

action, contending that they have at least facially satisfied the ‘similarly situated’ 

requirement,” and then “[l]ater, after the necessary discovery is complete, defendants will 

move for ‘decertification’ of the collective action on the theory that the plaintiffs’ status as 

‘similarly situated’ was not borne out by the fully developed record.” Id. at 1100. 

Although the court acknowledged that both steps involve evaluating whether the plaintiffs 

are “similarly situated,” it emphasized that courts apply different standards at each step:

Preliminary certification, as noted, refers to the dissemination of notice to 

putative collective members, conditioned on a preliminary determination that 

the collective as defined in the complaint satisfies the “similarly situated” 

requirement of section 216(b). At this early stage of the litigation, the district 

court’s analysis is typically focused on a review of the pleadings but may

sometimes be supplemented by declarations or limited other evidence. The 

level of consideration is “lenient”—sometimes articulated as requiring 

“substantial allegations,” sometimes as turning on a “reasonable basis,” but 

in any event loosely akin to a plausibility standard, commensurate with the 

stage of the proceedings.

[ . . . ] 

Assuming the collective action has survived its earlier scrutiny, the second 

stage will come at or after the close of relevant discovery. The employer can 

move for “decertification” of the collective action for failure to satisfy the 

Case 2:22-cv-00943-DWL Document 57 Filed 09/30/23 Page 4 of 26
- 5 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

“similarly situated” requirement in light of the evidence produced to that 

point. The district court will then take a more exacting look at the plaintiffs’ 

allegations and the record. Because of its purpose and timing, decertification 

can resemble a motion for partial summary judgment on the “similarly 

situated” question, and may be combined with cross-motions for summary 

judgment.

Id. at 1109-10 (cleaned up). The court noted that “the two-step process . . . has the 

advantage of ensuring early notice of plausible collective actions, then eliminating those 

whose promise is not borne out by the record.” Id. at 1110.

In Campbell, a decertification motion was at issue, so the “more exacting” 

summary-judgment-like standard applied, as opposed to the “lenient” plausibility-like 

standard that applies to a conditional certification motion. Nevertheless, because 

certification and decertification motions both ask the district court to consider whether the 

plaintiffs are “similarly situated,” the discussion in Campbell of the meaning of that 

statutory term is relevant for both steps in the two-step process.

Campbell rejected the two prevailing approaches to the “similarly situated” 

requirement that had emerged up to that point. The first rejected approach, dubbed the 

“minority approach,” would require FLSA collectives “to satisfy the [Rule 23] 

requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and 

superiority.” Id. at 1111. The court concluded that this approach was flawed because it 

“rests improperly on an analogy to Rule 23 lacking in support in either the FLSA or the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” imports “rules specific to class actions [which] have 

evolved to protect the due process rights of absent class members, a consideration not 

pertinent under the post-1947 FLSA,” and fails to take into account the “lower bar” for 

FLSA collective actions, to which employees have a statutory “right.” Id. at 1112-13. The 

second rejected approach, dubbed the “majority approach” or “ad hoc test,” would require 

district courts to “appl[y] a three-prong test that focuses on points of potential factual or 

legal dissimilarity between party plaintiffs” by first considering the “disparate factual and 

employment settings of the individual plaintiffs,” then considering the “various defenses 

available to defendants which appear to be individual to each plaintiff,” and finally 

Case 2:22-cv-00943-DWL Document 57 Filed 09/30/23 Page 5 of 26
- 6 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

considering “fairness and procedural considerations.” Id. at 1113. The court identified 

“two major flaws” with this approach: (1) it “offers no clue as to what kinds of ‘similarity’

matter under the FLSA,” such that “[i]t is, in effect, a balancing test with no fulcrum”; and 

(2) the “fairness and procedural considerations” prong “invites courts to import, through a 

back door, requirements with no application to the FLSA—for example, the Rule 23(b)(3) 

requirements of adequacy of representation, superiority of the group litigation mechanism, 

or predominance of common questions.” Id. at 1114-15.

Having rejected both prevailing approaches, the Court articulated the following 

definition of “similarly situated” that courts within the Ninth Circuit must employ:

[P]arty plaintiffs must be alike with regard to some material aspect of their 

litigation. That is, the FLSA requires similarity of the kind that allows 

plaintiffs the advantage of lower individual costs to vindicate rights by the 

pooling of resources. That goal is only achieved—and, therefore, a collective 

can only be maintained—to the extent party plaintiffs are alike in ways that 

matter to the disposition of their FLSA claims. If the party plaintiffs’ factual 

or legal similarities are material to the resolution of their case, dissimilarities 

in other respects should not defeat collective treatment.

Id. at 1114 (cleaned up). Put another way, “[p]arty plaintiffs are similarly situated, and 

may proceed in a collective, to the extent they share a similar issue of law or fact material 

to the disposition of their FLSA claims.” Id. at 1117. “[D]ifference” is not 

“disqualifying”—rather, “the requisite kind of similarity” is the “basis for allowing 

partially distinct cases to proceed together.” Id.

Under this definition, the members of an FLSA collective do not need to have 

“overall sameness.” Id. at 1116. For example, in Campbell, it was enough for the plaintiffs 

to demonstrate that they were subject to the same “overall policy” regardless of whether 

they “worked on different tasks, in different divisions, and under different supervisors” 

because “[a] systemic policy is no less common across the collective if those subject to it 

are affected at different times, at different places, in different ways, or to different degrees.” 

Id. In that case, “[t]he district court emphasized also that the [plaintiffs] worked different 

hours and claimed overtime of different amounts, including some amounts that might have 

been de minimis,” but the Ninth Circuit stated that “those distinctions go to the 

Case 2:22-cv-00943-DWL Document 57 Filed 09/30/23 Page 6 of 26
- 7 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

individualized calculation of damages or the individualized application of defenses” and 

“do not preclude collective treatment for the purpose of resolving the common issue that 

does exist, and that must be answered in the first instance.” Id. The court elaborated that 

“individualized damages calculations” are not “inherently inconsistent with a collective 

action” because “if a common question regarding the employer’s liability is answered in 

the plaintiffs’ favor, individualized calculations of work hours may readily be addressed 

with any of the practices developed to deal with Rule 23 classes facing similar issues.” Id. 

Considering that the “amount of damages is invariably an individual question and does not 

defeat class action treatment” in the Rule 23 context, the court held that “[i]ndividual 

damages amounts cannot defeat collective treatment under the more forgiving standard of 

section 216(b) either.” Id. at 1117.

Finally, the court clarified that “the FLSA does not give district courts discretion to 

reject collectives that meet the statute’s few, enumerated requirements.” Id. at 1115. “As 

is true in all FLSA cases,” the “background principle” is that “because the FLSA is a 

remedial statute, it must be interpreted broadly.” Senne v. Kansas City Royals Baseball 

Corp., 934 F.3d 918, 950 (9th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). “The ‘similarly situated’ 

standard at [the conditional certification] phase is fairly lenient and typically results in 

certification.” Roberts v. Sidwell Air Freight Inc., 2022 WL 16949565, *8 (W.D. Wash. 

2022) (quotation omitted).

II. The Parties’ Arguments

Plaintiff argues that conditional certification is warranted because “[Defendant’s]

non-exempt employees were subject to the same time, pay, and accounting practices as a 

result of [Defendant’s] uniform response to the Kronos outage,” through which “[a]ll these 

employees were initially paid based on time estimates, leading to underpayment of wages 

(including minimum and overtime wages), due to the defective corporate policies and 

procedures put in place to handle employee timekeeping and payroll.” (Doc. 33 at 4.)

In support of these assertions, Plaintiff proffers several pieces of evidence.1 As 

1 These pieces of evidence were not summarized in the tentative ruling. The Court 

Case 2:22-cv-00943-DWL Document 57 Filed 09/30/23 Page 7 of 26
- 8 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

relevant here, one of those pieces of evidence is a declaration from Plaintiff, who verifies

many of the factual allegations in the TAC while also adding some additional details. (Doc. 

33-1.) For example, Plaintiff provides more detail as to why Defendant’s challenged 

practices caused her to receive less-than-minimum wages, in violation of the FSLA, during 

at least one of the pay periods at issue:

During pay period #24, which is the pay period before the outage began, I 

worked less time due to the Thanksgiving holidays. During pay period #24, 

I was paid $153.19 for 3.85 hours of work, which, as far as I can tell, was 

paid at my correct rates of pay. I then returned to normal hours after, 

including pay periods #25 and #26. Because [Defendant] used pay period 

#24 to estimate my pay during pay periods #25 and 26, my pay was below 

the hours I actually worked for [Defendant] for those pay periods. For 

example, during pay period #25, I worked 23 hours, but I was paid a total of 

only $153.19, which is only $6.66 per hour.

(Id. ¶¶ 12-15.) Additionally, in an attempt to show that other non-exempt employees 

received less-than-minimum wages and/or did not receive overtime wages, Plaintiff makes 

the following statement:

Based on discussions with my co-workers, my familiarity with [Defendant’s] 

pay practices, and my observations and experiences, I know that most or all 

other nonexempt employees for [Defendant] who had to use the Kronos 

system had the same problems being timely and fully paid for the work we 

did, including minimum wage and overtime compensation, because 

[Defendant] used the period before the outage to pay for hours during the 

outage, even where we worked many more hours during the outage than we 

did in the pay period immediately preceding the outage.

(Id. ¶ 16.) 

Another of Plaintiff’s proffered pieces of evidence is a December 28, 2021 

presentation by Defendant entitled “Valleywise Health KRONOS Update.” (Doc. 33-3.) 

Among other things, this presentation states that “Payroll for pay periods #25 and #26 were 

based on pay period #24,” explains that “[i]f the employee believes that they worked more 

in PP#25 or PP#26 than they did in PP#24, they should report the difference on [a] Payroll 

adds them here in an effort to address some of the points raised during oral argument.

Case 2:22-cv-00943-DWL Document 57 Filed 09/30/23 Page 8 of 26
- 9 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Adjustment Form,” and further explains that “[d]ue to the volume of Forms received, they 

are being completed in order based on date of receipt and pay period, with an email to the 

employee when the check is ready.” (Id. at 5.) 

Finally, another of Plaintiff’s proffered pieces of evidence is a document entitled 

“Kronos Frequently Asked Questions.” (Doc. 33-4.) It includes the following description 

of Defendant’s post-outage payroll process: “Payroll for 12/17 will be made on time and 

will be the same amount that was paid on the 12/03 paycheck. As a result, the amounts 

may not be reflective of the actual work performed during this pay period. Any potential 

underpayments encountered by the employee will be addressed promptly while we also 

reserve the right to recoup any overpayments.” (Id. at 1.)2 

In its opposition brief, Defendant uses lengthy “introduction” and “background” 

sections to set forth various supplemental facts not alleged in the TAC or mentioned in 

Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification. (Doc. 39 at 1-6.) Defendant states that it 

“paid nearly half of its employees in full, on time” during the Kronos outage—specifically, 

47% of its workforce was timely paid in full. (Id. at 1-2.) Defendant also states that the 

employees who were not timely paid in full were at fault—they “did not report [their hours] 

timely, fully, and accurately” by using a “manual reporting system” that Defendant 

“immediately implemented” following the Kronos outage. (Id. at 1.) Defendant concedes 

that it used the amount paid for the pay period preceding the outage—pay period #24—

and duplicated that amount as a means of estimating payments owed during the outage, 

“understanding that in some cases manual adjustments would be needed.” (Id. at 3-4.) 

However, Defendant further explains that it “[a]nticipat[ed] that replicating pay period 24 

across periods 25, 26, and 1 might leave some employees underpaid if they worked more 

hours or different shifts and assignments” and therefore “set up a process” in which 

employees who “believed that they were or would be underpaid for a pay period affected 

2 A similar statement appears in another of Plaintiff’s proffered exhibits, which is a 

summary of a “Q&A from Valleywise Health manager meeting 12/16/2021”: “When we 

get our data back from Kronos, all of this is going to be reconciled and if we have overpaid 

or underpaid somebody, we’re going to pay what we have underpaid. If we have overpaid, 

we will recoup that also.” (Doc. 33-5 at 2.)

Case 2:22-cv-00943-DWL Document 57 Filed 09/30/23 Page 9 of 26
- 10 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

by the outage” were instructed to “submit payroll-adjustment requests” through an internal 

system named “Service Now.” (Id. at 4.) Defendant asserts it processed the payrolladjustment requests (dubbed “SNOW tickets”) “as fast as it could as they came in.” (Id.) 

Defendant states that “it was impossible . . . to process all the SNOW tickets associated 

with a given pay period during that period.” (Id.) However, Defendant attributes the delay 

to its employees’ failure to promptly submit their payroll-adjustment requests: “not all 

employees took advantage of the system, or [they] chose to submit at random times, often 

after the pay date for the period had passed.” (Id.)

Defendant also emphasizes that this system (duplicating pay period #24 and asking 

employees to submit payroll-adjustment requests) did not apply to “new employees who 

started after pay period 24,” such that Defendant “had to devise a separate system” for them 

“because there was no data to replicate,” so they were paid “their full time equivalent and 

base rate.” (Id. at 5.) In any event, Defendant asserts that once it had access to the data 

from the outage, it was “eventually able to use that data to distribute any payments that still 

needed to be made for employees who chose not to submit SNOW tickets or who had done 

so inaccurately,” although this process “took several months because Kronos’ assistance 

was needed but not timely received.” (Id.) Defendant states that “[i]n the end . . . every 

employee was paid in full” and adds that “to show appreciation for employees’ patience, 

[Defendant] issued $500 bonuses to everyone who was not already overpaid by at least that 

amount.” (Id. at 6.)

Defendant submits several pieces of evidence in support of its opposition brief. As 

relevant here, one of those pieces of evidence is a declaration from Matthew Meier, 

Defendant’s vice president of financial services. (Doc. 39-1.) Meier acknowledges that 

Defendant “was aware that duplicating pay period 24 would result in some employees 

being overpaid and others being underpaid in the impacted pay period.” (Id. ¶ 7.) Meier 

adds: “Not all underpaid employees chose to submit SNOW tickets and others submitted 

them too late to be processed before the payday for a pay period.” (Id. ¶ 10.) 

Against this backdrop, Defendant offers four reasons why the Court should not 

Case 2:22-cv-00943-DWL Document 57 Filed 09/30/23 Page 10 of 26
- 11 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

conditionally certify the collective: (1) “Plaintiff fails to allege a single FLSA-violating 

policy”; (2) “Plaintiff fails to submit sufficient evidence that she is similarly situated to 

other members of the prospective collective”; (3) “factual and legal issues unique to each 

employee make proceeding as a collective infeasible”; and (4) “[t]he only case to address 

this specific issue supports [Defendant].” (Id. at 7-14.)

In reply, Plaintiff does not dispute Defendant’s supplemental facts. Regarding 

Defendant’s first argument, Plaintiff contends that Defendant “made several decisions 

regarding how and when it would pay its non-exempt employees that it applied uniformly” 

and that “[t]hese company-wide pay policies—in particular, the decisions to estimate hours 

worked by duplicating prior pay periods and to combine workweeks in an attempt to 

reconcile employees’ net pay at the end of the outage—violate the FLSA and bind the 

proposed collective as similarly situated.” (Doc. 45 at 1.) Plaintiff emphasizes that 

Defendant has now admitted that (1) it duplicated a prior pay period to create “estimated” 

payrolls, (2) it knew this would result in underpayment, (3) only 47% of its employees 

were timely paid in full, and (4) its reconciliation process for underpaid employees took 

months. (Id. at 2.)3 Plaintiff contends that “[e]ven if any of [Defendant’s] alleged defenses 

held water (and they don’t), they are all merits-based arguments. At this stage, it is 

improper to evaluate the merits of FLSA claims or defenses. These are, by their nature, 

strictly second stage considerations and should not be considered at this time.” (Id. at 4.) 

Regarding Defendant’s second argument, Plaintiff asserts that she is not required to submit 

evidence in the form of “some minimum number of declarations” and, at any rate, her 

evidence has now been “buttressed by [Defendant’s] own testimony and evidence.” (Id. at 

7.) Regarding Defendant’s third argument, Plaintiff argues that “individual damages do 

not prevent certification.” (Id. at 4.) Regarding Defendant’s fourth argument, Plaintiff 

discusses the status of the various “Kronos outage wage-and-hour cases” and highlights 

3 Plaintiff also asserts that Defendant conceded that it “failed to ensure that all 

employees were ever paid for the work they performed” and that Defendant “aggregated 

employee pay data across the entire payroll outage instead of determining amounts owed 

to employees on a week-by-week basis” (Doc. 45 at 2), but the Court does not agree that 

Defendant conceded these points.

Case 2:22-cv-00943-DWL Document 57 Filed 09/30/23 Page 11 of 26
- 12 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

that of the various cases, “[o]nly one other employer has thus far taken up the parties’ and 

the Court’s resources by contesting conditional certification” and that employer lost. (Id.

at 5-6.)

III. Analysis

Plaintiff seeks to conditionally certify a collective of similarly situated workers 

(“FLSA Collective members”) composed of all of Defendant’s current or former nonexempt employees who worked in the United States at any time between December 11, 

2021 and January 19, 2022. (Doc. 31 ¶ 18; Doc. 45-1 at 3.)4 The TAC alleges that due to 

Defendant’s “unlawful compensation practices,” “[t]he FLSA Collective members were 

not paid at least the minimum wage for all hours worked” and “were not paid their full 

overtime premiums on time,5if at all, for all overtime hours worked,” in violation of the 

FLSA. (Doc. 31 ¶¶ 76-78, 84.)

A threshold matter raised by the parties’ briefing is what to do with the supplemental 

facts and evidence that Defendant has now proffered. There is a strong argument that the 

Court can simply ignore those facts at this stage of the case. “At this early stage of the 

litigation, the district court’s analysis is typically focused on a review of the pleadings but 

may sometimes be supplemented by declarations or limited other evidence.” Campbell, 

903 F.3d at 1109. Campbell noted that “Plaintiffs satisfy their ‘burden’ at the pleading 

stage with allegations that ‘plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.’” Id. at 1118-19. 

Although Campbell did not specifically address the standard applicable to conditional

certification motions, id. at 1118 (“Because preliminary certification is not challenged in 

4 Although Plaintiff defined the collective slightly differently in the TAC (Doc. 31 

¶ 18) and in the proposed order granting its motion (Doc. 45-2), in both places identifying 

a different end date, Defendant asserted during oral argument that the Court should utilize 

the date limitation set forth above, which is derived from Plaintiff’s proposed notice (Doc. 

45-1 at 3), and Plaintiff agreed to the use of this verbiage.

5 As Plaintiff correctly notes in her reply, “under the FLSA wages are ‘unpaid’ unless 

they are paid on the employees’ regular payday.” Biggs v. Wilson, 1 F.3d 1537, 1538 (9th 

Cir. 1993). However, Defendant asserts that, under 29 C.F.R. § 778.106, an employer does 

not violate the FLSA by making a late overtime payment “where [the] correct amount of 

overtime compensation cannot be calculated until after the regular pay period and [the] 

employer pays as soon as practicable” and thus “[o]nly late payments despite time records 

could violate the FLSA.” (Doc. 39 at 8.) 

Case 2:22-cv-00943-DWL Document 57 Filed 09/30/23 Page 12 of 26
- 13 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

this case, we address only the standard the district court should apply to post-discovery 

decertification.”), its suggestion that the standard would be “loosely akin to a plausibility 

standard, commensurate with the stage of the proceedings,” id. at 1109, suggests that the 

factual allegations in the TAC should be “accepted as true.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009). See also Luque v. AT & T Corp., 2010 WL 4807088, *3 (N.D. Cal. 2010)

(“Courts need not even consider evidence provided by defendants at this stage.”). 

Nevertheless, and as discussed in more detail below, even if the Court were to accept all of 

Defendant’s supplemental facts here, such acceptance would not alter the conditional 

certification analysis. 

On the merits, Defendant first argues that conditional certification should be denied 

because Plaintiff does not “allege a single, FLSA-violating policy.” (Doc. 39 at 7-8.)

Focusing first on whether there was a “single” policy, Defendant relies on its supplemental 

facts to assert that “there was no common plan that created liability as to all nonexempt 

employees”—rather, there was “a fluid, individualized approach that impacted employees 

in multiple ways.” (Id. at 7.) This argument is unavailing. As noted, there is a strong 

argument under Campbell that a district court need not credit a defendant’s version of the 

facts for purposes of a conditional certification motion. Alternatively, even if the Court 

were to credit Defendant’s proffered facts—or construe Plaintiff’s failure to contest those 

facts as conceding them—those facts would not undermine the existence of “a systemic 

policy” that was “no less common across the collective” even if “those subject to it [were] 

affected at different times, at different places, in different ways, or to different degrees.” 

Campbell, 903 F.3d at 1116. Under Defendant’s rendition of the facts, Defendant created 

a default rule of using estimates derived from an earlier pay period to pay its non-exempt 

employees during the outage but also encouraged such employees to submit payroll 

adjustment requests. That is still a systemic policy. Similarly, if Defendant made an 

assumption about the number of hours worked (rather than using historical data derived 

from pay period 24) as the default pay rate for employees hired after pay period 24, the 

overall policy remains systematic. All employees were subject to Defendant’s policy, 

Case 2:22-cv-00943-DWL Document 57 Filed 09/30/23 Page 13 of 26
- 14 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

albeit in “different ways” depending on when they were hired.

As for whether there was an “FLSA-violating” policy, Defendant argues that “even 

if Plaintiff’s simplistic depiction of [Defendant’s] response to the outage was accurate, she 

would still be missing one essential element: the common policy or plan employees were 

allegedly subject to must be unlawful.” This appears to be a suggestion that, when 

resolving a motion for conditional certification, the Court must evaluate the merits of the 

plaintiff’s theory of liability and determine whether the challenged conduct was, as a matter 

of law, unlawful. But such a determination is not necessary or proper at this stage. As 

noted, Campbell explains that “workers may litigate jointly if they (1) claim a violation of 

the FLSA, (2) are ‘similarly situated,’ and (3) affirmatively opt in to the joint litigation, in 

writing.” Campbell, 903 F.3d at 1100. Elsewhere, Campbell states that “[p]reliminary 

certification . . . [is] conditioned on a preliminary determination that the collective as 

defined in the complaint satisfies the ‘similarly situated’ requirement.” Id. at 1109. These 

passages suggest that a district court’s inquiry at the conditional certification stage is 

limited to evaluating the plaintiff’s showing as to the “similarly situated” prong. A district 

court need not, in contrast, separately evaluate the “claim a violation” prong, which is 

distinct.

6

 Thus, it is sufficient for the complaint to “claim a violation of the FLSA” and, 

separately, to plausibly allege a common question of fact or law material to the disposition

of the asserted FLSA violation. See, e.g., Loera v. Cnty. of Alameda, 2023 WL 4551080, 

*5 (N.D. Cal. 2023) (“The defendant counters that the plaintiffs have not adequately 

alleged a common FLSA violation because [their allegations do] not point to an unlawful 

policy or practice . . . . But for purposes of this certification motion, the plaintiffs need 

only ‘claim a violation of the FLSA’ and show that they are ‘similarly situated.’ . . . The 

6 During oral argument, Defendant suggested that Campbell’s passages regarding the 

conditional-certification process may be dicta because the issue in Campbell was whether 

the district court properly granted the defendant’s decertification request. But even if the 

challenged passages could be characterized as dicta, they would remain binding on this

Court. See, e.g., United States v. McAdory, 935 F.3d 838, 843 (9th Cir. 2019) (“Where a 

panel confronts an issue germane to the eventual resolution of the case, and resolves it after 

reasoned consideration in a published opinion, that ruling becomes the law of the circuit, 

regardless of whether doing so is necessary in some strict logical sense. . . . In other words, 

well-reasoned dicta is the law of the circuit . . . .”) (cleaned up).

Case 2:22-cv-00943-DWL Document 57 Filed 09/30/23 Page 14 of 26
- 15 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

complaint claims an FLSA violation, and . . . the plaintiffs have plausibly shown that they 

‘were together the victims of a single decision, policy, or plan.’”) (citations omitted). Here, 

the TAC alleges that Defendant violated the FLSA via the pay practices it adopted in the 

wake of the Kronos outage. (Doc. 31 ¶¶ 83-92.) Defendant, meanwhile, did not move to 

dismiss the TAC under Rule 12(b)(6), as it could have done if it believed the factual 

allegations in the TAC were insufficient to support a claim for FLSA liability, and instead 

filed an answer. (Doc. 38.) Thus, the “claim a violation” prong is satisfied.

Senne is not to the contrary.7 There, the Ninth Circuit considered whether minor 

league baseball players who brought claims under the FLSA and state wage-and-hour laws

could “properly bring their wage-and-hour claims on a collective and classwide basis.” 

934 F.3d at 923-24. The plaintiffs alleged that they were not paid at all during spring 

training, extended spring training, and “instructional leagues,” and the parties disputed 

whether participation in those activities was mandatory. Id. The plaintiffs also alleged that 

during the championship season “they routinely work overtime, for which they are never 

compensated as a matter of policy.” Id. at 924. After the district court conditionally 

certified the FLSA collective action, notice was sent to approximately 15,000 current and 

former players and more than 2,200 opted in. Id. The following year, the defendants 

moved to decertify the FLSA collective, and meanwhile the plaintiffs moved to certify 

Rule 23(b)(2) class actions for their state-law claims. Id. The district court—operating 

without the benefit of Campbell, which wasn’t decided until 2018—decertified the FLSA 

collective and denied certification under Rule 23(b)(2), basing its decision on Rule 23 

considerations. Id. at 924-25. On a motion for reconsideration that narrowed the 

collective, the district court—still without the benefit of Campbell—recertified the 

narrowed FLSA collective and certified the Rule 23(b)(2) class in part. Id. at 925-26.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s recertification of the FLSA collective, 

concluding that although the district court’s analysis was “legally incorrect” in light of 

7

In light of some of the points raised during oral argument, the Court has expanded 

upon the discussion of Senne that appeared in the tentative ruling.

Case 2:22-cv-00943-DWL Document 57 Filed 09/30/23 Page 15 of 26
- 16 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Campbell, the district court nevertheless reached the right outcome because the new 

standard was “more lenient.” Id. at 947-48 & n.28. As for the plaintiffs’ uncompensated 

work during spring training, extended spring training, and the instructional leagues, the 

court affirmed the recertification of the collective because “two common legal questions 

drive the litigation: are the players employees, and do the activities they perform during 

those times constitute compensable work?” Id. at 949. The Ninth Circuit did not determine 

whether the nearly universal policy of not paying for this work was unlawful—it 

determined that whether it was unlawful was a shared material issue of law, meaning that 

the players were similarly situated. Id. (“As nearly all players are unpaid during these time 

periods, if the answers to those two questions are resolved in plaintiffs’ favor, liability may 

be established by showing that the players performed any work.”). As for the overtime 

claims, the court affirmed the recertification of the collective, stating as follows:

Critical to our decision is that plaintiffs allege a single, FLSA-violating 

policy—the failure to pay overtime under any circumstances—and argue a 

common theory of defendants’ statutory violations: that defendants “suffer 

or permit” plaintiffs to perform compensable work before and after 

scheduled practice and game times. These are “similar issue[s] of law or fact 

material to the disposition of their FLSA claims,” thus making plaintiffs 

“similarly situated.”

Id.

Here, Defendant seizes upon the phrase “single, FLSA-violating policy” to suggest 

that, before conditionally certifying the collective, the Court must find that the conduct 

alleged in the TAC was “unlawful.” (Doc. 39 at 8.) The Court respectfully disagrees. 

Senne addressed the standard announced in Campbell and explained why, under the facts 

of that case and as to one particular claim, the Campbell standard was satisfied. Unlike the 

minimum wage claims, where the shared question was whether the undisputed policy was 

lawful, the overtime claims boiled down to shared questions regarding whether the players 

had, in fact, worked overtime hours, where an obviously unlawful policy was alleged (i.e., 

refusal to pay overtime “under any circumstances”). Senne, 934 F.3d at 949. Thus, the 

Court does not construe Senne’s use of the phrase “single FLSA-violating policy” in the 

passage addressing the overtime claims as suggesting that the conditional certification 

Case 2:22-cv-00943-DWL Document 57 Filed 09/30/23 Page 16 of 26
- 17 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

analysis involves (let alone requires) a determination of the merits. Again, all that is 

required for conditional certification is that the workers are similarly situated: “Preliminary 

certification . . . [is] conditioned on a preliminary determination that the collective as 

defined in the complaint satisfies the ‘similarly situated’ requirement of section 216(b).” 

Campbell, 903 F.3d at 1109. See also Smith v. Akal Sec. Inc., 2019 WL 1932117, *4 (D. 

Ariz. 2019) (“Defendant’s Response extensively argues the merits of the case, rather than 

focusing on the narrow issue before the Court. As noted above, the inquiry with this motion 

is limited, and at this stage, the Court does not review the underlying merits of the action.”).

Indeed, Senne confirms that “party plaintiffs are similarly situated, and may proceed in a 

collective, to the extent they share a similar issue of law or fact material to the disposition 

of their FLSA claims.” 934 F.3d at 948 (quotation omitted). Accordingly, the existence 

of an unresolved dispute over whether Defendant’s pay practices during the Kronos outage 

were “unlawful” does not serve as an impediment to conditional certification, as Defendant 

suggests, but rather underscores why the collective members are similarly situated. 

Defendant also appears to assert that it is not enough for conditional certification 

purposes to have a systemic policy to which all members of the collective were subjected—

there must also be proof that all members of the collective were subjected to FLSA 

violations. Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot satisfy this alleged requirement here 

because, during the Kronos outage, “[n]early half” of its employees were “paid in full and 

on time.” (Doc. 39 at 8.) But the “lenient” standard for conditional certification does not 

require a showing that every member of the collective will necessarily have a meritorious 

case. Campbell, 903 F.3d at 1109. Conditional certification exists only for the purpose of 

providing notice of the collective action. Id. 

Defendant next argues that the Court should deny conditional certification because 

“Plaintiff fails to submit sufficient evidence that she is similarly situated to other members 

of the proposed collective.” (Doc. 39 at 8-11.) In support of this point, Defendant cites 

Rivera v. Saul Chevrolet, Inc., 2017 WL 3267540 (N.D. Cal. 2017). (Id. at 7.) However, 

Rivera predates Campbell and applied the “ad hoc” standard that the Ninth Circuit 

Case 2:22-cv-00943-DWL Document 57 Filed 09/30/23 Page 17 of 26
- 18 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

disapproved in Campbell. Rivera, for example, faulted the plaintiff for “fail[ing] to provide 

sufficient evidence that Plaintiff and members of the putative collective action . . . have 

similar job responsibilities and pay structures.” Rivera, 2017 WL 3267540 at *8. But 

Campbell rejected that approach:

In applying the ad hoc test . . . the district court emphasized that Officers 

worked on different tasks, in different divisions, and under different 

supervisors. Those distinctions would not have mattered to the determination 

of liability if it were proven, as claimed, that the Department had an overall 

policy against submitting small overtime claims. A systemic policy is no 

less common across the collective if those subject to it are affected at 

different times, at different places, in different ways, or to different degrees.

Campbell, 903 F.3d at 1116. Simply put, Campbell holds that the alleged existence of a 

systematic policy to which all employees were subjected eliminates the need to scrutinize 

individual plaintiffs in search of differences. To the extent Defendant offers arguments to 

the contrary (Doc. 39 at 11-15), they lack merit in light of Campbell’s holdings on this 

point.

Defendant also cites Colson v. Avnet, Inc., 687 F. Supp. 2d 914 (D. Ariz. 2010), 

another pre-Campbell decision, for the proposition that Plaintiff “must provide the court 

with ‘detailed allegations supported by declarations which successfully engage a 

defendant’s affidavits to the contrary.’” (Doc. 39 at 8-9.) But Campbell once again 

forecloses that proposition. Campbell, 903 F.3d at 1109 (“At this early stage of the 

litigation, the district court’s analysis is typically focused on a review of the pleadings but 

may sometimes be supplemented by declarations or limited other evidence. The level of 

consideration is lenient—sometimes articulated as requiring substantial allegations, 

sometimes as turning on a reasonable basis, but in any event loosely akin to a plausibility 

standard, commensurate with the stage of the proceedings.”) (cleaned up). 

Perhaps recognizing this point, Defendant argues in the alternative that even if 

“Plaintiff does not have to provide multiple declarations to support her motion,” Plaintiff 

still must “make substantial allegations that she is similarly situated with the members of 

her proposed collective.” (Doc. 39 at 10.) Upon reflection and with the benefit of the 

points raised by Defendant’s counsel during oral argument, the Court has expanded the 

Case 2:22-cv-00943-DWL Document 57 Filed 09/30/23 Page 18 of 26
- 19 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

discussion of this issue that appeared in the tentative ruling. 

On the one hand, Defendant has identified reasons to question the substantiality of 

Plaintiff’s allegations and evidence as to one particular issue—whether Defendant’s 

challenged pay practices actually resulted in FLSA violations when applied to other 

employees beyond Plaintiff. Although the TAC explains, with specificity, why the 

application of the challenged practices caused Plaintiff to be paid less-than-minimum 

wages in violation of the FLSA, the TAC offers only conclusory allegations when it comes 

to why the application of these practices to other non-exempt employees also resulted in 

FLSA violations. For example, although the TAC alleges that “[m]any employees were 

. . . not paid for the non-overtime wages for hours worked in certain workweeks in which 

they worked over 40 hours” (Doc. 31 ¶ 42), the TAC does not identify any of these coworkers by name, provide any other details regarding the alleged overtime violations, or 

allege that these unspecified co-workers submitted evidence of their overtime hours in a 

manner that would enable Defendant to make timely overtime payments, as Defendant 

contends is required under 29 C.F.R. § 778.106. (Doc. 39 at 8.) Similarly, although the 

TAC alleges that “employees who were non-exempt were in many cases paid less than the 

hours they worked in the workweek, resulting in a failure to pay minimum wages” (Doc. 

31 ¶ 41), it doesn’t necessarily follow that paying an employee for “less than the hours they 

worked in the workweek” also results in a violation of the FLSA’s minimum wage 

provisions. Take, for example, a hypothetical employee who earned an hourly wage of 

$25 and worked 20 hours in pay period 24. Pursuant to the challenged pay practices, 

Defendant would have paid that employee $500 for pay period 25 (i.e., the hourly rate of 

$25 multiplied by an assumed 20-hour workweek). If that employee actually worked 40 

hours during pay period 25, the $500 paycheck would have been too low, because the 

employee should have been paid $1,000 (i.e., the hourly rate of $25 multiplied by 40 hours). 

However, that too-small payment would not have amounted to an FLSA minimum-wage 

violation. This is because the FLSA only requires the payment of a minimum wage of 

$7.25. See 29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(1)(C). Thus, so long as Defendant paid the hypothetical 

Case 2:22-cv-00943-DWL Document 57 Filed 09/30/23 Page 19 of 26
- 20 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

employee at least $290 during pay period 25 (i.e., the minimum wage of $7.25 multiplied 

by 40 hours), which Defendant would have done in the example above, there would be no 

FLSA minimum-wage liability. See generally Rosen v. Fasttrak Foods LLC, 2021 WL 

3130333, *2 (D. Ariz. 2021) (“Rosen makes no effort to calculate the minimum wage she 

should have been paid under the FLSA . . . . Such minimum wages, to be clear, are not the 

same thing as Rosen’s contractual rate of pay. . . . To calculate her damages under [the 

FLSA], Rosen would need to identify the actual number of hours she worked and multiply 

the figure by the applicable minimum wage.”); Rodriguez v. Capital Commercial 

Solutions, LLC, 353 F. Supp. 3d 452, 462 (E.D. Va. 2017) (“[Plaintiff] claims he is owed 

his contracted rate of $ 18 per hour for the forty hours of regular work and $ 27 per hour 

for the sixteen hours of overtime, totaling $ 1,152, for this period. However, federal law 

provides a minimum wage of $ 7.25 per hour . . . . Thus, for each regular business hour 

worked, [Plaintiff] is entitled to payment at the rate of $ 7.25 per hour, totaling $ 290 ($ 

7.25 x 40).”). 

The additional evidence that Plaintiff proffered in support of her certification motion 

does not add to the substantiality of Plaintiff’s showing on this particular point. Although 

Plaintiff asserts in her declaration that, “[b]ased on discussions with my co-workers, my 

familiarity with [Defendant’s] pay practices, and my observations and experiences, I know 

that most or all other nonexempt employees for [Defendant] who had to use the Kronos 

system had the same problems being timely and fully paid for the work we did, including 

minimum wage and overtime compensation” (Doc. 33-1 ¶ 16), Plaintiff’s reliance on vague 

generalities in lieu of specific factual details is again conspicuous. Additionally, although 

declarations from other similarly situated employees are not, for the reasons discussed 

above, required at the conditional-certification stage, they can be useful when, as here, the 

plaintiff’s own allegations are challenged as insubstantial. 

On the other hand, the insubstantiality of Plaintiff’s showing on this particular 

point—which, again, is the extent to which the application of Defendant’s challenged pay 

practices to other members of the collective actually resulted in FLSA violations—is 

Case 2:22-cv-00943-DWL Document 57 Filed 09/30/23 Page 20 of 26
- 21 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ultimately a red herring. As discussed at length in earlier sections of this order, Plaintiff 

simply needs to show that she and the other members of the collective “share a similar 

issue of law or fact material to the disposition of their FLSA claims.” Campbell, 903 F.3d 

at 1117. By alleging and also providing evidence—much of it undisputed—that Defendant 

had a policy of estimating payroll and requiring employees to submit adjustment requests, 

the lawfulness of which is in question in this case, Plaintiff has met her “lenient” burden 

of demonstrating the propriety of conditional certification. Id. at 1109. Perhaps it will be 

revealed during later stages of this case that the challenged pay practices did not result in 

many (or any) FLSA violations beyond the minimum-wage violation to which Plaintiff 

was allegedly subjected, but that is not a reason to deny conditional certification.

For similar reasons, there is no merit to Defendant’s argument that “[m]aterial 

factual and legal issues unique to each employee make proceeding as a collective 

infeasible.” (Doc. 39 at 11-14.) Defendant contends that its “non-exempt employees are 

subject to myriad distinctions that make collective certification inappropriate,” including 

that “many non-exempt employees were not paid late or underpaid at all during the outage” 

and that it intends to raise a “good-faith defense”—which, in turn, will control the 

availability of liquidated damages—that “may differ with respect to each employee based 

on several factors, including (1) which period(s) they were underpaid, (2) the reasons they 

were underpaid and the steps they took to take advantage of the systems [Defendant] put 

in place, (3) and when they were hired.” (Id.) This marks another instance where 

Defendant’s arguments, however forceful they may have been before 2018, are foreclosed 

by Campbell. As noted, Campbell holds that “[i]f the party plaintiffs’ factual or legal 

similarities are material to the resolution of their case, dissimilarities in other respects 

should not defeat collective treatment,” that “[a] systemic policy is no less common across 

the collective if those subject to it are affected at different times, at different places, in 

different ways, or to different degrees,” and that “individualized damages calculations” are 

not “inherently inconsistent with a collective action.” Id. at 1114, 1117. 

Defendant’s final argument is that “[o]nly one other court has considered a motion 

Case 2:22-cv-00943-DWL Document 57 Filed 09/30/23 Page 21 of 26
- 22 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

for conditional certification in the wake of the attack on Kronos, and the ruling supports 

[Defendant].” (Doc. 39 at 14.) The argument appears to be responsive to Plaintiff’s 

observation that “at least one company-wide collective has already been certified in the 

wake of the Kronos outage,” citing the same case, Gaul v. Accura Health Ventures, LLC, 

2023 WL 312369 (S.D. Iowa 2023). (Doc. 33 at 10.) In an effort to show that Gaul actually 

supports its position, Defendant argues as follows:

Gaul was a non-exempt employee of a healthcare provider in Iowa. She 

alleged that, when Kronos crashed, her employer estimated her pay instead 

of paying her for her actual hours worked, violating the FLSA. Unlike 

Plaintiff Robinson here, however, Gaul actually submitted timely manual 

hours from which proper overtime could have been calculated through 

“simple arithmetic.” Ignoring these actual hours, the employer let its 

estimation process control, leaving the pay to even out in later periods. The 

court explained why, if Gaul had not timely submitted records, she might not 

be similarly situated to other employees. Indeed, it noted that without timely 

records Gaul’s employer might have a strong good faith defense. But 

because the employer possessed timely records, the Gaul court granted 

conditional certification, based on an alleged common illegal practice not 

followed by [Defendant]: using estimates even after employees presented 

actual time records.

(Doc. 39 at 14, citations omitted.) 

The Court reads Gaul differently. There, there were apparently two different 

groups, Payroll Group A and Payroll Group B. Gaul, 2023 WL 312369 at *8. Although 

the employer used November 2021 data to estimate the number of hours worked by 

employees in Payroll Group A during the Kronos outage, it did not do so for employees in 

Payroll Group B. Id. The named plaintiff had “received a promotion just as the Kronos 

outage occurred and therefore was entitled to pay at a higher overtime rate in December 

than she received in November.” Id. at *7. The court expressed “doubts about whether an 

employee for whom November data is used to estimate the number of hours worked is 

similarly situated to those for whom November data is used the estimate the rate of pay” 

but nevertheless concluded that they were. Id. at *8. The court emphasized that, despite 

“the idiosyncratic features of Gaul’s situation,” she had done enough to “satisf[y] her 

minimal burden” at the conditional-certification stage, but the court also noted that 

“[w]hether Gaul can survive the more stringent burden of proving certification down the 

Case 2:22-cv-00943-DWL Document 57 Filed 09/30/23 Page 22 of 26
- 23 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

road is, of course, a very different question.” Id. That analysis does not support denying 

conditional certification here.8

Thornton v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 2023 WL 4712035 (W.D. Ark. 2023), the case the 

parties discuss in their supplemental briefs (Docs. 52, 53), is another recent decision in 

which a court granted a conditional certification request in an FLSA action filed in the 

aftermath of the Kronos outage.

9

 Of course, Thornton is not binding here, as it is a district 

court decision that does not apply Ninth Circuit law. Nevertheless, Thornton’s conclusion 

that “[b]ecause all non-exempt employees at Tyson were similarly affected by the Kronos 

hack, judicial efficiency would be promoted by litigating their claims together on a 

nationwide-basis” (id. at *4), is consistent with the Court’s determination that the FLSA 

collective members here are similarly situated. Although judicial efficiency is not part of 

the equation in this circuit, efficiency still matters to the extent it benefits the plaintiffs. 

Campbell, 903 F.3d at 1115-16 (“[I]f the party plaintiffs’ FLSA right to choose collective 

litigation has any force, ‘procedural considerations’ must mean more than the 

inconvenience, from the court’s or defendant’s viewpoint, of the party plaintiffs’ choice.”); 

id. at 1119 (“The collective mechanism is meant to ensure that party plaintiffs have the 

option of benefitting from the efficiencies of collective litigation—including, in cases 

8 The discussion in Gaul about “simple arithmetic” was not part of the court’s 

“similarly situated” analysis. That part of the order addressed (and denied) the defendant’s 

summary judgment motion, in part because “it was not ‘impracticable’ as a matter of law 

for [the defendant] to determine the correct amount of overtime compensation in a timely 

manner”—it could be done by “implement[ing] a manual timesheet system to track hours,” 

such that “[n]o estimates were required” and calculating pay “was a matter of simple 

arithmetic.” 2023 WL 312369 at *7.

9 Defendant’s assertion that the court “actually denied the class sought” in Thornton

is wrong. During the briefing process, the plaintiff voluntarily limited her proposed 

collective. Thornton, 2023 WL 4712035 at *5. The court never discussed whether it would 

have certified the collective anyhow, without this voluntary limitation, and certainly did 

not deny any proposed collective. Indeed, the limitation did not factor into the court’s 

analysis in any meaningful way and was mentioned only as an aside, to bolster the decision 

the court reached for other reasons. Id. (“It is undisputed that Tyson’s policy to duplicate 

the December 4 pay period for the December 11 pay period was a uniform, company-wide 

policy, as were the company’s policies to manually track hours during the remainder of the 

hack and reconcile pay on a ‘net’ basis, rather than pay period by pay period. Tyson’s nonexempt employees were affected by these policies in similar ways, particularly now that 

Thornton has limited her proposed collective to only those non-exempt employees who 

worked at least 40 hours during the hack.”).

Case 2:22-cv-00943-DWL Document 57 Filed 09/30/23 Page 23 of 26
- 24 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

presenting genuine disputes of material fact, collective access to trial.”).

IV. The Notice

In the alternative, Defendant argues that if the Court conditionally certifies the 

collective, it “should modify the notice content and procedures that Plaintiff proposes” to 

(1) “accurately describe the Court’s role, dates of eligibility, recipient options, the nature 

of the allegations, and [Defendant’s] position”; (2) limit the means of sending notice to 

mail and email only, rather than permitting notice via text messaging or phone calls; and 

(3) limit the production of employee contact information to mailing and email addresses. 

(Doc. 39 at 14-18.) One of the “recipient options” Defendant proposes is the option “to 

retain different legal counsel.” (Id. at 17.) 

In reply, Plaintiff “disagrees that any of [Defendant’s] requested changes to the 

proposed notice are necessary or warranted,” but “in order to avoid dispute or delay,” 

Plaintiff does not oppose most of Defendant’s modification requests. (Doc. 45 at 10.) For 

example, Plaintiff “agrees to compromise and limit” the notice methods to mail and email. 

(Id. at 9.) Additionally, although Plaintiff does not directly respond to Defendant’s request 

to limit the production of employee contact information to mailing and email addresses,

Plaintiff’s brief implies concession on this point. (Id.)

Plaintiff only appears to oppose two of Defendant’s modification requests. First, in 

response to Defendant’s contention that “the Notice should not refer to unpaid wages where 

there is no allegation of such a violation” and instead should refer to “late payments 

following the ransomware attack on Kronos” (Doc. 39 at 16), Plaintiff acknowledges that 

the “language describing the claims in the lawsuit [should be] adjusted to include 

‘untimely,’ as well as ‘unpaid,’ wages” but does not agree to remove the word “unpaid,” 

in part because she “does not agree all unpaid wages have yet been paid.” (Doc. 45 at 10 

& n.7.) The Court agrees with Plaintiff on this point. Although the Court understands 

Defendant’s position that any late wage payments have now been rectified, that is not 

Plaintiff’s position. The notice should accurately reflect Plaintiff’s position in this action, 

Case 2:22-cv-00943-DWL Document 57 Filed 09/30/23 Page 24 of 26
- 25 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

even if her position is factually and legally disputed.10

The second dispute concerns the section of Plaintiff’s proposed notice that falls 

under the heading “What are your options?” (Doc. 33-7 at 4.) In Plaintiff’s proposed 

notice, one of the identified options is “Join the lawsuit,” and immediately underneath that 

option is an explanation of how to fill out and send the attached consent form to the law 

firm that represents Plaintiff. (Id.) According to Defendant, this section of the notice 

should be changed to include the following: “If you join the lawsuit, you may choose to be 

represented by the attorneys below or you may choose to retain different legal counsel. If 

you choose to retain your own counsel, they will file your notice. If you choose to be 

represented by the attorneys below, you can return your consent form in one of these ways 

. . . .” (Doc. 39-3 at 2.) Defendant also identifies a recent case in which another judge in 

the District of Arizona approved such an amendment. (Doc. 39 at 16.) In reply, Plaintiff 

argues that Defendant’s “proposed invitation to invite more plaintiff lawyers into this 

lawsuit is . . . completely unworkable,” cites a variety of cases in which courts rejected 

similar amendment requests, and notes that her proposed notice already “lets potential 

plaintiffs know they can seek different counsel and pursue their own claim in a separate 

proceeding.” (Doc. 45 at 10-11.)

Defendant has the better side of this argument. As another judge of this court 

recently (and, in the Court’s view, correctly) observed, “Plaintiffs’ proposed notice would 

leave potential class members with two options in the event they want to bring a case 

against Defendants; they can either opt-in and use Plaintiffs’ counsel or opt-out and bring 

a separate lawsuit. However, these are not the only options available to putative class 

members under the FLSA. Putative class members may choose to opt-in and hire their 

10 During oral argument, Defendant also argued that the term “wages” in the notice is 

imprecise, because the FLSA only applies to minimum wages and overtime wages, and 

suggested that Plaintiff’s phrasing may cause recipients to conclude, mistakenly, that they 

also have a claim for unpaid regular wages. In response, Plaintiff offered several 

justifications for the language as written. For the time being, the Court is satisfied that 

Plaintiff’s proposed phrasing represents a fair shorthand for the claims at issue in this case. 

By so concluding, the Court does not mean to suggest that it has prejudged any future 

substantive dispute over the categories of potential damages.

Case 2:22-cv-00943-DWL Document 57 Filed 09/30/23 Page 25 of 26
- 26 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

own lawyer.” Lopez v. PT Noodles Holdings Inc., 2021 WL 2576912, *7 (D. Ariz. 2021). 

Nor is the Court persuaded by the concern that some courts have expressed when denying 

similar amendment requests, which is that confusion and inefficiency would flow from 

allowing opt-in plaintiffs in a collective action to retain their own counsel. Not only is that 

concern speculative and hypothetical, but the Court cannot see how efficiency concerns 

could override the need to provide potential opt-in plaintiffs with accurate, complete 

information about their rights. Campbell, 903 F.3d at 1100 (one of the “permutations” of 

the statutory right to participate in a collective action is “the right of any employee to 

become a party plaintiff to any such action”).11

Because Plaintiff agreed to (or did not dispute) Defendant’s other requested 

modifications, all disputes surrounding the notice procedures and content have been

resolved. The Court authorizes the notice and other procedures as outlined in and appended 

to Plaintiff’s reply brief, with the exception that Defendant’s proposed representationrelated language must be added. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s conditional certification motion (Doc. 33) is 

granted. The collective, as defined in this order, is conditionally certified, and notice may 

be provided as set forth in this order.

Dated this 30th day of September, 2023.

11 During oral argument, Plaintiff noted that a different section of her proposed notice 

already explains that, in lieu of choosing to be represented by Plaintiff’s counsel, an opt-in 

plaintiff “can obtain counsel of your own choosing (at your own expense), who can file 

your Notice of Consent with the Court.” (Doc. 45-1 at 4.) The Court appreciates this 

clarification but cannot see how it helps Plaintiff’s position. If Plaintiff agrees that the 

notice should advise opt-in plaintiffs of their right to proceed in this case via separate 

counsel (which seems contrary to the position raised in Plaintiff’s reply, which was that 

advising opt-in plaintiffs of that right would create inefficient chaos), the Court sees no 

harm in also including that advisement in the section of the notice entitled “What are my 

options?” as Defendant proposes.

Case 2:22-cv-00943-DWL Document 57 Filed 09/30/23 Page 26 of 26