Defendant contended that “the facts of this case are “unsuited for resolution via the FLSA’s collective action mechanism” because of the differences in the individual work and pay histories as well as the fact that each class member must show that Dauterive managers had actual or constructive knowledge that overtime qualifying work was being performed by each member.” Id. at 6 (internal quotation omitted). Nonetheless, the Court held that the “act that there may be some differences between Plaintiffs and the proposed class, including, but not limited to, the potential for varying amounts of damages, does not preclude conditional certification. Courts have repeatedly stressed that Plaintiffs must only be similarly—not identically—situated to proceed collectively.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). The Court went on to further state that “[c]onditional certification is appropriate when there is a demonstrated similarity among the individual situations … [and] some factual nexus which binds the named plaintiffs and the potential class members together as victims of a particular alleged [policy or practice]. Whether employees are “similarly situated” for purposes of the FLSA is determined in reference to their job requirements and with regard to their pay provisions.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).
Busby v. Dauterive Contractors, Inc., No. 6:14-cv-03366, 2016 WL 430608 (W.D. LA 2016)(Whitehurst, J.).