## Facts

- Thomas McLaughlin and George Carver worked for Liberty Mutual Insurance Company as Auto Damage Appraisers in Massachusetts.
- Liberty Mutual classified Auto Damage Appraisers as exempt from overtime and allegedly did not pay overtime for hours worked over 40 per week.
- Plaintiffs brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Massachusetts overtime law.
- The FLSA claim proceeded as an opt-in collective action.
- Plaintiffs moved to certify an opt-out class under Rule 23(b)(3) for the Massachusetts overtime claim on behalf of all Massachusetts Auto Damage Appraisers employed from February 19, 2001 through final judgment.
- Plaintiffs asserted there were at least 51 additional Massachusetts Auto Damage Appraisers with similar overtime claims.

## Issues

1. Whether the proposed Massachusetts overtime class satisfied Rule 23(a)’s requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation.
2. Whether the proposed class satisfied Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance and superiority requirements.
3. Whether the parallel, overlapping FLSA opt-in collective action made Rule 23(b)(3) certification improper on predominance, superiority, or manageability grounds.

## Decision

- The court granted plaintiffs’ motion to certify a Rule 23(b)(3) class for the Massachusetts overtime claim.
- The court found Rule 23(a) satisfied: joinder was impracticable; the exemption/misclassification question was common; plaintiffs’ claims were typical; and named plaintiffs and counsel could adequately represent the class.
- The court found Rule 23(b)(3) satisfied:
  - Common questions about exempt status and the legality of Liberty Mutual’s overtime practices predominated over individualized issues.
  - A class action was superior given the relatively small value of individual wage claims and the efficiency of resolving shared liability questions in one proceeding.
- The court rejected the argument that coexistence of an FLSA collective and a Rule 23 state-law class, by itself, defeated certification, concluding the case could be managed with standard case-management tools and employer records.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 23(a) requires numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy; if met, the action must also satisfy one Rule 23(b) category.
- In overtime misclassification cases, the legality of an employer’s exemption classification and related policies can present common issues suitable for classwide proof when class members hold the same position and are governed by uniform practices.
- Under Rule 23(b)(3), individualized damages calculations do not automatically defeat certification when liability turns primarily on common questions.
- The presence of a parallel FLSA opt-in collective does not categorically bar certification of an overlapping state-law opt-out class; predominance, superiority, and manageability remain case-specific inquiries.

## Conclusion

The court certified a Massachusetts Auto Damage Appraisers class under Rule 23(b)(3) to litigate state overtime claims alongside an existing FLSA collective, holding that the shared exemption and overtime-policy questions predominated and that class treatment was the fairest and most efficient method despite individualized damages and parallel federal proceedings.


McLaughlin v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 224 F.R.D. 304 (D. Mass. 2004)