United States District Court, D. Minnesota
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,
iQor Holdings U.S. Inc., Defendant.
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.
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
RICHARD NELSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
factual and procedural background of this matter is well
documented in the prior rulings of this Court and only
briefly summarized here.
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.
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].)
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.)
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].)
April 11, 2018, iQor filed the instant motion. It asks this
Court to certify the following question to the Eighth Circuit