## Facts

- Cristian Luna, Anthony Hernandez, and Javier Delgado worked in Chanel, Inc.’s shipping department at a Beverly Hills, California boutique, generally from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
- Plaintiffs alleged that managers in the shipping department, and employees from other departments, often required them to continue working after 6:00 p.m.
- Plaintiffs alleged Chanel did not pay them overtime compensation for that work at one-and-one-half times their regular rate, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
- Chanel used daily task checklists for shipping-department employees that assigned specific time allotments to tasks.
- Plaintiffs alleged one checklist task had no time allotted for completion.
- Plaintiffs alleged the checklists did not list rest breaks and did not allocate time for rest breaks.
- Plaintiffs alleged managers instructed them to work with urgency while also demanding precision because the employees handled expensive merchandise and mistakes were not tolerated.
- Plaintiffs alleged that, to complete checklist work within expectations, they had to stay after hours and skip rest breaks.
- One plaintiff complained to Chanel’s human resources (HR) department about the lack of rest breaks.
- HR posted a daily break-and-lunch schedule in the shipping department, but plaintiffs alleged managers did not change task requirements or workflow, the employees still did not receive the breaks, the schedule was removed after about two weeks, and the employees were not offered rest breaks again.
- Plaintiffs sued Chanel under FLSA § 207(a)(1), alleging failure to pay overtime wages.
- Plaintiffs moved under FLSA § 216(b) for certification of a nationwide collective action of similarly situated Chanel shipping employees so they could receive notice and opt in.
- Chanel opposed and submitted statements from shipping employees at other locations indicating they had not experienced underpayment of overtime wages due to Chanel’s policies.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs made the required modest factual showing that Chanel shipping employees nationwide were “similarly situated” under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) such that a nationwide collective should be conditionally certified and notice issued.

## Decision

- The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of a nationwide FLSA collective action.
- The court found plaintiffs’ showing tied the alleged overtime violations to the Beverly Hills boutique’s day-to-day practices and did not sufficiently support an inference of a common, unlawful nationwide practice affecting shipping employees across Chanel locations.
- The court declined to authorize nationwide notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs.

## Legal Principles

- FLSA collective actions under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) require potential plaintiffs to opt in; court-authorized notice typically depends on a threshold showing that the proposed members are “similarly situated.”
- Courts commonly use a two-step approach: an initial, lenient stage (often before substantial discovery) and a later, stricter stage after discovery.
- At the initial stage, plaintiffs must make a modest factual showing—through declarations or other evidence—that they and others were subject to a common policy, plan, or practice that resulted in an FLSA violation.
- Allegations supported only by experiences at a single worksite may be insufficient to justify a nationwide collective when the proposed group spans multiple locations with different managers and practices.
- Courts may consider employer-submitted declarations at the notice stage to assess whether the record supports a reasonable inference of a shared unlawful practice or instead reflects meaningful differences across locations.

## Conclusion

The court refused to conditionally certify a nationwide collective because plaintiffs’ evidence centered on checklist-driven workload and break practices at one Beverly Hills boutique, and Chanel’s contrary evidence from other locations weakened any inference that shipping employees nationwide were subject to the same overtime-violating practice.


Luna v. Chanel, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187653 (2016)