You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Sharma v. Burberry Ltd.

Citations: 52 F. Supp. 3d 443; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124382; 2014 WL 4385426Docket: No. 12-6356 (LDW)(AKT)

Court: District Court, E.D. New York; September 4, 2014; Federal District Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

This case involves a collective action against Burberry Limited by a group of Sales Associates alleging failure to pay overtime wages as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law. Plaintiffs sought conditional certification of the collective action, claiming that Burberry enforced a policy requiring unpaid overtime work. The court granted conditional certification to a limited class of Sales Associates at the Manhasset, Roosevelt Field Mall, and Short Hills locations, based on evidence of a consistent policy of off-the-clock work at these sites. The court denied certification for a broader nationwide class due to a lack of sufficient evidence demonstrating a common policy across all Burberry locations. Discovery was granted for records related to the certified locations, and the court approved the distribution of notice to potential class members, setting specific guidelines for its scope and method of dissemination. Motions related to evidentiary challenges and supplementation of the record were addressed, with the court generally allowing the inclusion of new evidence and denying the motion to strike declarations. The decision underscores the procedural and evidentiary aspects involved in the initial stages of FLSA collective actions, emphasizing the need for a factual basis supporting claims of common illegal practices.

Legal Issues Addressed

Conditional Certification under Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

Application: The court granted conditional certification for Sales Associates at specific locations based on a modest factual showing of a common policy requiring unpaid overtime work.

Reasoning: The court then analyzed the plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification, which seeks to include all Sales Associates (SAs) employed by Burberry from December 26, 2009, and those in New York from December 26, 2006. The court conditionally certified a class of sales associates (SAs) employed at these two locations.

Discovery in FLSA Collective Actions

Application: The court granted and limited discovery based on the scope of conditional certification, allowing the collection of records only for specified locations and positions.

Reasoning: Plaintiffs requested complete time and payroll records for all current and former Sales Associates (SAs) employed since 2006 at the Manhasset, New York store and since 2009 at the Short Hills, New Jersey store. The Court mandates that the Defendant produce these records, as well as for the Roosevelt Field Mall location.

Evidentiary Standards for FLSA Conditional Certification

Application: Plaintiffs met the lenient evidentiary standard by providing declarations that indicated a common policy of unpaid overtime work at particular store locations.

Reasoning: At this stage, the evidentiary standard for establishing a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is lenient, requiring only a 'modest factual showing' that plaintiffs and potential plaintiffs were subjected to a common policy or plan that potentially violated the law.

Rejection of Nationwide Collective Action Certification

Application: The court denied the request for nationwide certification due to insufficient evidence of a common policy across all Burberry locations.

Reasoning: The court denied the motion for conditional certification of a nationwide collective action due to the plaintiff's insufficient evidence to support claims of company-wide policies.

Scope of Notice for FLSA Claims

Application: The court determined the scope of notice for potential class members, limiting it to certain store locations and defining the class to include only Sales Associates and Sales Leads.

Reasoning: The Plaintiffs aim to send the Notice to all current and former SAs since December 26, 2006. The Defendant argues for a narrower focus, limiting it to SAs at the Manhasset, New York, and Short Hills, New Jersey locations. The Court agrees but includes the Roosevelt Field Mall location as well.