United States District Court, D. New Jersey
DONALD MADDY, KURT FREDRICK, FREDRICK R. SHELLHAMMER, III, FRANK MICHIENZI, MARIO LAUREANO, ANOTHONY CHELPATY, WILLIAM MADDEN, STEVEN LE BLANC, JEFFREY SCOTT WILKERSON, JEFFREY NACARETTE, PHILLIP ERIC BENSON, BRADLEY PALMER, THOMAS KISS, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, a New York corporation, Defendant.
Justin L. Swidler, Esq., Richard S. Swartz, Esq., SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, Robert D. Soloff, Esq., ROBERT D. SOLOFF, P.A., Plantation, Florida, Allen Eichenbaum, Esq., Plantation, Florida, Counsel for Plaintiffs.
Nina Markey, Esq., Rachel Fendell Satinsky, Esq., Aaron Reed, Esq., (pro hac vice), Daniel B. Boatright, Esq., (pro hac vice) LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Counsel for Defendant General Electric Company.
JOSEPH E. IRENAS, District Judge.
Plaintiffs, service technicians working for the General Electric Company ("GE" or "Defendant"), brought this putative collective action pursuant to § 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover allegedly unpaid overtime compensation from Defendant.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' Letter Brief Seeking to Facilitate Curative Notice and Enjoin Defendants from Further Interfering with Court-Facilitated Notice. (Docket No. 113) For the reasons explained herein, Plaintiffs' request is GRANTED in part.
This putative collective action rests on Plaintiffs' allegations that service technicians in GE's Appliances Division routinely, and with Defendant's knowledge, performed work "off the clock" in order to satisfy daily revenue requirements. As one of their principal claims, Plaintiffs assert that service technicians, at Defendant's direction, must log into their computers each morning to obtain their first customer calls and prepare for the day, but that Defendant has not compensated Plaintiffs for such work.
The Court preliminarily certified this matter as a collective action on November 14, 2014, and, following the provision of court-facilitated notice to all putative class members, a ninety-day opt-in period began on January 28, 2015.
Less than one month later, on February 23, 2015, Customer Service Manager ("CSM") Vince Guida, who supervises Southern California Region service technicians, sent an email to his technicians with the subject heading "Time worked and time reporting - MUST READ." (Ex. 1-C to Pls.' Ltr.) The message states, in relevant part,
Over the past years, multiple emails have been sent, PowerPoint presentations shared, and during tech meetings I have stressed the importance of the Company's Timecard Guidelines. It is imperative that you understand there is to be absolutely NO GE work performed off the clock. Any time spent performing GE work needs to be reported on your timecard. This includes, but is not limited to, sending work related emails before you start your work day or after you end your work day, as well as accessing GE Systems such as TPTP to conduct any GE work. If you have to do work related tasks before your start time or after your start time, you are required to request approval from me in advance, and then once approved, the time must be added to your time card.
So there is no misunderstanding, the above should be considered direct work instruction and failure to abide by these instructions will be considered insubordination, a category 2 work rule violation, and ...