Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Shoots v. Iqor Holdings US, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

May 25, 2018

Paris Shoots, Jonathan Bell, Maxwell Turner, Tammy Hope, Phillipp Ostrovsky, Brenda Brandt, Anissa Sanders, Najai McCutcheon, and Michael Chavez, on behalf of themselves, the Proposed Rule 23 Classes, and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
iQor Holdings U.S. Inc., Defendant.

          Carl F. Engstrom, Rachhana T. Srey, and Robert L. Schug, Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Brian T. Rochel, Douglas L. Micko, Marisa C. Katz, and Vildan A. Teske, Teske Micko Katz Kitzer & Rochel, PLLP, for Plaintiffs.

          Brian T. Benkstein, Charles McNeill Elmer, Elizabeth S. Gerling, and Gina K. Janeiro, Jackson Lewis P.C., Robert James Lee, Shon Morgan, and Viola Trebicka, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, for Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Certify Interlocutory Appeal [Doc. No. 440]. For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant's Motion is denied.

         II. BACKGROUND

         The factual and procedural background of this matter is well documented in the prior rulings of this Court and only briefly summarized here.

         A. Factual Background

         Plaintiffs are all current or former employees of iQor, for which they worked as call center workers, or “contact center agents” (“CCAs”). They filed this putative collective action/class action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and several states' laws stemming from iQor's use of a timekeeping system called TimeQey. Plaintiffs assert that the TimeQey system underreported their hours by taking them off the clock after two minutes of computer inactivity, not compensating them for log-in time, and creating time gaps. Defendant denies any violations.

         B. Procedural Background

         In October 2015, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for conditional FLSA certification. (See Oct. 19, 2015 Order at 41-49 [Doc. No. 142].) Specifically, the Court certified a collective action for current or former iQor CCAs who used TimeQey for timekeeping purposes during the three years prior to the commencement of the action, and who worked more than 40 hours during any workweek in that period. (Id. at 53-54, 63.) Approximately 3, 500 people opted into the FLSA collective action. (Decl. of Robert L. Schug in Supp. of Pls.' Mot. for Class Certification Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23, ¶ 2 [Doc. No. 363].)

         In August 2017, iQor moved to decertify the FLSA collective and Plaintiffs moved for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. On March 27, 2018, the Court granted in part, and denied in part, iQor's FLSA decertification motion, and denied Plaintiffs' Rule 23 motion. (See Mar. 27, 2018 Order at 1-2 [Doc. No. 430].) Specifically relevant here, the Court denied iQor's motion as it related to claims for unpaid breaks of 20 minutes or less. (See id. at 50-55, 60-61.)

         Shortly after the Court issued its ruling, Plaintiffs sought a 60-day stay of the Order's effective date. (See Pls.' Letter Request at 1-2 [Doc. No. 431].) They explained that a stay would give the FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs and putative Rule 23 class members an opportunity to evaluate their respective legal options in light of the Court's ruling. (See id.) The Court granted the request and proceedings are currently stayed for 60 days from the date of the Court's March 27 Order. (See Apr. 4, 2018 Order at 2 [Doc. No. 435].)

         On April 11, 2018, iQor filed the instant motion. It asks this Court to certify the following question to the Eighth Circuit ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.