“The only other argument Defendants make as to this issue is to point out that the evidence presented by Plaintiff only speaks to the overtime claims of [two other employees], and does not establish the claims of Plaintiff herself or the other employees she represents in the collective action. . . . Such a collective action ‘functions like a class action under Rule 23 in that it provides a judicial mechanism for the efficient resolution of the claims of multiple plaintiffs that involve common factual issues on the basis of representative proof.’ It is sufficient, then, that Plaintiff has put forward representative proof as to the liability of [Defendant] under the overtime violation claim.” 2016 WL 5122123, at *4 (citation omitted).
McDaniel v. Family Sleep Diagnostics, Inc., No. 3:13-CV-4031-KS, 2016 WL 5122123 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 20, 2016).