United States District Court, D. Rhode Island
DIVISION 618, AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, KEVIN COLE ET AL., Plaintiffs,
v.
RHODE ISLAND PUBLIC TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant. v.
ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH CHIEF JUDGE
The
Court has reviewed the Motion for Certification of Settlement
Class and Preliminary Certification of Fair Labor Standards
Act Collective Action, and for Preliminary Approval of
Proposed Settlement. (“Joint Mot.”) (ECF No. 6.)
This Motion was filed jointly by the Defendant, Rhode Island
Public Transit Authority (“RIPTA”) and the
Plaintiff, Division 618, Amalgamated Transit Union (the
“Union”) and three members of its bargaining unit
who are individually named Plaintiffs in this suit
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”), individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated. For the reasons set
forth below, the Court conditionally certifies the settlement
class, preliminarily certifies the Fair Labor Standards Act
(“FLSA”) collective action, and preliminarily
approves the proposed settlement.
I.
Certification
The
parties have requested an order certifying the Rule 23
settlement class and preliminarily certifying the FLSA
collective action. The Court recognizes that the parties have
stipulated that the individuals who make up both classes are
in the Union's bargaining unit and were employed as
full-time bus operators for RIPTA between April 24, 2015 and
the date of the Settlement Agreement and General Release
(“Settlement Agreement”).
A. The
Court Grants Certification of the Rule 23 Class Action
When
seeking class certification, it must be demonstrated that the
proposed class meets the requirements of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure Rule 23(a) and one of the three categories in
Rule 23(b). Rule 23(a) permits one or more members of a class
to represent all class members' interests if (1) the
class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common
to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the
representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses
of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly
and adequately protect the interests of the class.
Additionally, the applicable category of Rule 23(b)(3)
requires that questions of law or fact common to class
members predominate over any questions affecting only
individual members and that a class action is superior to
other available methods for fairly and efficiently
adjudicating the controversy.
First,
this putative class consists of approximately 500 bus
operators, and attempting to join all members of the class
can reasonably be viewed as impracticable. Thus, the standard
for numerosity is satisfied.
Second,
the legal claims in this matter depend on factual contention
that RIPTA did not compensate its bus operators under the
Union's collective bargaining agreement for their
split-shift travel time. Additionally, all plaintiffs face
the common legal issue of whether the alleged failure to pay
split-shift travel time violates both the FLSA and Rhode
Island law. There is accordingly commonality of factual and
legal issues within the class.
Third,
each named plaintiff, like other RIPTA bus operators in the
putative class, allege that they did not receive compensation
for their travel to and from RIPTA's Elmwood garage and
Kennedy Plaza. The Collective Bargaining Agreement
(“CBA”) stipulates the trip takes eighteen
minutes, a typical period across all class members.
Therefore, there is typicality among the class
representatives' claims and those of the class.
Fourth,
the class representatives are aligned with the class members
and are not seeking incentive payments. Their proposed
settlement compensation is the same as all other putative
class members. Furthermore, Plaintiff's counsel is highly
qualified and able to carry out their corresponding duties as
class counsel. The Court thus finds it is reasonable to
believe that the representative parties will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class.
Lastly,
each putative plaintiff has the same causes of action against
RIPTA based on the practice or policy of not paying operators
for split-shift travel time during the settlement period. All
putative class members belong to the same bargaining unit of
Plaintiff's Union and have regularly disputed issues with
management collectively. Moreover, no putative class members
have initiated suit against RIPTA on any similar grounds
outside of this matter.
Therefore,
because common questions of fact and law predominate for all
putative class members and after examining the interests
listed in Rule 23(b)(3)(A-D), this Court finds that a class
action is superior to other methods of adjudicating this
dispute.
For
these reasons, this Court hereby certifies the following Rule
23 settlement class: individuals in the Union's
bargaining unit who were employed as full-time RIPTA bus
operators and worked at any time between April 24, 2015 and
the date of the Settlement Agreement. This Court also
appoints Division 618, Amalgamated Transit Union and Kevin
Cole, James Thornley, and Tracey Blackledge as class
representatives, and appoints Gerard P. Cobleigh of ...