In a recent decision, on September 16, 2014, the Eastern District of New York granted Plaintiffs\u2019, personal injury protection and medical payments claims adjusters (\u201cadjusters\u201d), motion for class certification of their New York Labor Law (\u201cNYLL\u201d) claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, while denying Defendant\u2019s, Allstate Insurance Company, motion to decertify the Fair Labor Standards Act (\u201cFLSA\u201d) collective.\u00a0 Perez v. Allstate Insurance Co.<\/i>, Nos.11 -1812 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2014).<\/p>\n
The Court pointed to testimonial and documentary evidence to find that all adjusters in the FLSA collective were similarly situated.\u00a0 The Court specifically pointed out that all adjusters shared the same duties such as making coverage decisions, investigating claims, and paying medical bills, and all adjusters were subject to the same policies, had the same training, and follow a uniform job description.\u00a0 Additionally, testimony of all the deposed adjusters showed that they all worked about eight to nine hours a day and spent time each day working from home. \u00a0Defendants argued that the adjusters were not similarly situated based on several proposed differences, such as the variation in time each adjuster spent on a claim, whether the adjuster had a claims processor or not, the variation in the amount of money each adjuster could pay out, the variation in the State each adjuster worked, differences in each adjusters\u2019 coverage determinations, how each adjuster conducted investigations, and several other practices.\u00a0 However, the Court shot down each of these arguments, finding these differences trivial and holding that any relevant factors led to a determination that the adjusters were similarly situated.\u00a0 Furthermore, the Court concluded that fairness and procedural considerations weigh in favor of a collective action in the instant case for the above reasons.<\/p>\n
The Court also certified the Rule 23 class finding that Plaintiffs met their burden in proving all four requirements, numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy and established the predominance requirement by a preponderance of the evidence.\u00a0 The Defendants only contested commonality, typicality, and adequacy, but the Court ruled in Plaintiffs\u2019 favor in each.\u00a0 First, the Court held that the New York adjusters\u2019 claims are common among the entire class, since they all have uniform policies, evaluations, training, and job descriptions.\u00a0 The Court also found that the typicality requirement was met for these same reasons, which showed Plaintiffs\u2019 claims are based on the same legal theory and arise from the same practice or course of conduct as the other New York adjusters.\u00a0 And finally, the Court held that the representative Plaintiffs were adequate to represent the class, regardless of the fact that they were fired and have separate retaliation claims in addition to the claims of the entire class.\u00a0 As for the predominance requirement under Rule 23(b)(3), the Plaintiffs must prove whether the proposed class is sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.\u00a0 The Court denied Defendants argument that individual issues of law and fact predominate such as each New York adjusters\u2019 actual job duties and damages, and agreed with Plaintiffs that a class action is superior to other methods in this case because it promotes fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.\u00a0 Finally, the Court approved Class Counsel since they have proven time and again that they are capable and experienced in such a class action representation.<\/p>\n