Cuevas v. Citizens Financial Group, Inc.

Citations: 283 F.R.D. 95; 19 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 149; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158058; 2012 WL 1865564Docket: No. 10-CV-5582(FB)(RML)

Court: District Court, E.D. New York; May 22, 2012; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Plaintiff Alberonys Cuevas has filed a class action lawsuit against Citizens Financial Group, Inc. and Citizens N.A., alleging violations of the New York Labor Law (NYLL) regarding overtime pay for Assistant Bank Managers (ABMs) classified as exempt from overtime requirements. The defendants operate approximately 230 bank branches in New York, employing both exempt (Branch Managers and ABMs) and non-exempt employees (bankers, tellers, etc.). Cuevas worked as an ABM at a Freeport location from March to December 2009.

To achieve class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the class meets specific criteria, including numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. The plaintiff seeks certification under Rule 23(b)(3), which requires that common legal or factual questions predominate and that a class action is the superior method for adjudication. The court notes a similar class certification from a Northern District of Illinois case involving ABMs at Charter One bank, where the common issue was whether an unlawful overtime policy denied employees their earned compensation. While not binding, this precedent provides relevant guidance for the current case. The court ultimately grants the motion for class certification.

The proposed class consists of all Assistant Branch Managers (ABMs) employed at Citizens Bank retail branches in New York since December 1, 2004, who were salaried and classified as exempt from overtime under New York Labor Law (NYLL). The defendants oppose class certification, arguing that: (1) the plaintiff fails to meet the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) due to variations in ABM job duties across branches, necessitating individual proof for each member; (2) common questions do not predominate under Rule 23(b)(3) because daily activities differ among ABMs; (3) a class action is not a superior method for resolving the dispute; and (4) the named plaintiff, Cuevas, lacks credibility and his claims are not typical of the class, compromising his ability to represent them adequately.

Commonality requires that class members suffer the same injury, which entails a shared contention capable of classwide resolution. The defendants argue that variations in job duties prevent a common contention, citing declarations from potential class members that highlight differences in their responsibilities. However, legal precedents indicate that class certification is appropriate when the central issue involves company-wide policies affecting statutory rights, even with some variations in daily duties. The plaintiff references various documents outlining ABM responsibilities, asserting that these documents are essential for determining whether ABMs fall under the 'executive' or 'administrative' exemptions. This legal question is pertinent to all class members, supporting the argument for commonality despite the need for some individualized assessments.

Defendants have not provided evidence to dispute the accuracy of company-wide policy documents regarding Assistant Branch Managers' (ABMs) responsibilities, indicating these policies support a common classification issue under the New York Labor Law (NYLL). The plaintiffs' argument for classwide resolution hinges on these shared policies. Defendants claim that individual proof is necessary to establish liability for each ABM, which they argue undermines the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3). They acknowledge that a blanket exemption policy by itself does not suffice to demonstrate that common issues outweigh individual ones. However, this policy is relevant and suggests a degree of uniformity among employees, aiding the predominance analysis. The presence of a comprehensive corporate framework defining ABM duties indicates that differences among individual cases do not significantly impact the class's overall claims. Courts have historically certified classes in similar contexts, where job duties are dictated by established policies, affirming that individual inquiries are not required for determining exemption status. Thus, common issues prevail, supporting the cohesion needed for class certification.

Superiority factors for the Rule 23(b)(3) requirement include: (1) class members' interests in controlling separate actions; (2) the extent of existing litigation related to the controversy; (3) the desirability of concentrating claims in a specific forum; and (4) management difficulties of a class action. The superiority analysis requires evaluating alternative adjudication methods, fairness comparisons, and efficiency assessments. Defendants contend that a class action is not superior due to significant variations in class members' job duties, which they argue would lead to unmanageable “mini-trials.” However, they fail to provide compelling evidence of these variations or address the superiority factors effectively. 

In contrast, the plaintiff asserts that individual claims are discouraged due to small potential damages, that no other related litigation exists, and that centralizing claims in the Eastern District of New York is favorable since all class members work in the area. The plaintiff argues that a class action would be fair and efficient, preventing an overload of identical claims in court and acknowledging that many class members may lack the resources to pursue individual litigation. The court may consider the barriers faced by less affluent or uninformed individuals in enforcing their rights. Thus, a class action is deemed the superior method for resolving claims, promoting efficiency and uniformity without sacrificing fairness.

Regarding typicality and adequacy, defendants argue that Cuevas is an unsuitable class representative because his claims are not typical of the class. A representative's claims are considered typical if they arise from the same events and involve similar legal arguments. Adequacy is assessed by ensuring the interests of the representative align with those of the class and that the attorneys are qualified to conduct the litigation.

Defendants argue that Cuevas's claim lacks typicality and adequacy as a class representative due to several factors: (1) his claim does not pertain to the time he served as an “acting” Branch Manager (BM); (2) his job duties differed from those of other Assistant Branch Managers (ABMs) who had supervisory roles; (3) he is only seeking monetary damages; and (4) his credibility is questionable due to inconsistent statements about his work hours and submission of an inaccurate resume. However, the record indicates that Cuevas's misclassification claims share essential legal elements with other class members, as he was classified as exempt from New York Labor Law (NYLL) overtime requirements while working as an ABM at Citizens Bank. Typicality does not require identical factual backgrounds; it necessitates that the legal issues be central to all claims. Cuevas's interests align with those of the other class members, and the differences in ABMs' roles across locations are overstated. 

Plaintiffs concede that class members do not seek overtime damages for periods as “acting” BMs, meaning this distinction does not affect the legal arguments presented. Cuevas’s preference for monetary damages is reasonable given his current unemployment and does not impede class certification. Moreover, discrepancies in his work hour statements do not significantly undermine his credibility or his role as a representative. Defendants' attacks on Cuevas's credibility are deemed irrelevant and do not suggest he would face unique defenses that compromise his adequacy as a representative. Lastly, while defendants challenge the qualifications of proposed class counsel, they fail to provide substantial evidence supporting their claims regarding Cuevas's selection or the filing of the complaint.

Donelon, P.C. and the Winebrake Law Firm have been appointed as class counsel for multiple wage and hour class actions, including the Ross case in Illinois. The plaintiff has demonstrated that the proposed class counsel is qualified and capable of handling the litigation effectively, as per the standard established in In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc. The Court has granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification, certifying a class composed of all Assistant Bank Managers employed at Citizens Bank retail branches in New York since December 1, 2004, who were salaried and classified as exempt from overtime under New York Labor Law. Donelon, P.C. and the Winebrake Law Firm are approved as class counsel, with Alberonys Cuevas designated as the class representative. The Court confirms that it has diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 due to the presence of class members from different states than the defendants and an amount in controversy exceeding $500,000,000, with defendants not disputing this jurisdiction. Additionally, the defendants acknowledge that the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1) is met.