Authored by Christopher Kelleher and Noah Finkel
Seyfarth Synopsis: Federal court denies motion for conditional certification for a proposed class of employees working at separate Subway franchises.
Earlier this year, the DOL’s Wage-Hour Division issued a much-publicized Administrator Interpretation on what employers constitute joint employers, including an explanation of how two or more employers under common ownership can constitute “horizontal” joint employers. As articulated by the WHD’s sweeping pronouncement, it appeared that virtually any jointly-owned entities might constitute joint employers, at least in the eyes of the WHD.
But in a victory for employers in the battle over joint employer status, a federal district judge in the Southern District of Florida recently denied a motion for conditional collective action certification for a group of Subway employees of different franchises with common ownership. In Aguiar, et al. v. Subway 39077, Inc., Timothy E. Johnson, et al., plaintiff Yirandi Aguiar sought collective action certification for the overtime claims for all “Store Managers” working at approximately 38 Subway franchises owned and operated as separate corporate entities by Timothy Johnson in Southern Florida.
Applying the usual “fairly lenient standard” to determine whether conditional collective action certification was warranted, the Court rejected Aguiar’s attempt to certify the collective on several levels. First, the proposed collective was comprised of individuals employed by approximately 38 separate, non-party corporate entities. Second, Aguiar only provided “Consent to Join” forms and affidavits from three individuals including herself, and thus failed to sufficiently show the existence of other employees who wished to opt into the action.
Third, and most significantly, even if Aguiar could satisfy these first two elements, the Court found that the putative plaintiffs were not similarly situated. In making this determination, the Court noted that the individuals worked at separate corporate entities, and Aguiar did not show that she or other employees were authorized to sell or make sandwiches at any other of the 38 franchises. Additionally, the franchises were spread throughout Southern Florida, and thus were not geographically concentrated. And finally, Aguiar failed to provide information regarding a joint payroll department or joint supervision over the proposed collective action members.
This case demonstrates that even under the “lenient standard” described above, merely alleging common ownership over a number of franchises is not enough to show joint employment status or to obtain a broad conditional certification order.