In the case of Hanigan v. OpSec Security, Inc., Emily Hanigan filed a lawsuit against OpSec Security and OpSec Online (collectively, “OpSec”) on behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals. Hanigan claimed that they were wrongly classified as exempt from receiving overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Hanigan further claimed that she and the other individuals performed similar tasks, such as reviewing the internet for potentially illegal activity on behalf of OpSec’s clients. The court explained that there was a two-step approach to determine if an individual is “similarly situated” and can be included in the lawsuit. The court found that there were enough similarities among the employees to proceed with collective action. The court further explained the importance of informing these individuals about their rights, costs, and obligations related to the lawsuit process.
The court determined that the notice to be given to other employees needed to be amended. The court gave Hanigan a 60-day timeline to revise the notice and consent forms that were to be distributed to similarly situated individuals. Subsequently, the court required OpSec to provide a list of potential “plaintiffs” within 14 days after the revised notice was approved.
In summary, the court granted the conditional certification for collective action but ordered a revision of the notice and set deadlines to provide the needed documents.
Key lessons from this case:
- Employees can sue employers on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated in a collective action but must receive consent for it to be approved.
- Potential employees to be involved in a lawsuit must be given a notice that provides details of their rights, fees and costs, and litigation obligations.
- Misclassified employees are entitled to receive overtime wages for any overtime hours they worked unpaid.
If you want to know more about overtime regulations, read our guide on Idaho Overtime Laws.
