Dist. Ct. did not err in denying plaintiff-employee’s request for class action certification in plaintiff’s action alleging that defendant-employer failed to properly calculate overtime pay for its employees. Dist. Ct. could properly find that plaintiff’s proposed class of 37 co-workers failed to satisfy Rule 23’s numerosity requirement. While plaintiff’s proposed class came close to threshold number of 40 class members that court in Orr, 953 F.3d 490 recognized as sufficient to satisfy numerosity requirement, Dist. Ct. properly considered proposed class’s geographic dispersion, which indicated that all but two members lived within 50 miles of courthouse where plaintiff had filed lawsuit, as well as fact that plaintiff otherwise failed to produce any evidence indicating that joinder of proposed class members’ claim would be impractical. Also, Dist. Ct. could properly note that statutorily authorized attorneys’ fees would lower barrier to filing suit caused by small damage awards at stake in instant claims.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Class Action