Case 2:17-cv-10619-LJM-EAS ECF No. 88 filed 06/24/19
PageID.3398
Page 8 of 10
certification stage, Plaintiffs must present evidence, not just rely on their complaint. Swinney v. Amcomm Telecomms., Inc., 2013 WL 28063, at *9 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 2, 2013) (holding that a plaintiff’s “conclusory allegations” are “not sufficient” for conditional certification). Even if Plaintiffs’ conclusory allegations of the existence of a longstanding discriminatory policy were sufficient, which they are not, Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged a timely discriminatory act.1 Dkt. 32, Pg ID 1257; see also Robison v. AAA of Michigan, 2011 WL 2271296, at *3 (E.D. Mich. June 8, 2011) (noting “the audit and evaluation on which Robison relies in part to support her claim are discrete discriminatory acts which resulted in a pay decrease as opposed to discriminatory compensation acts”). No Plaintiff has individually alleged in the SAC, in an EEOC Charge, or even in a declaration supporting the Motion for Conditional Certification that his PLM ratings were lowered because of alleged forced ranking during calibration. To the extent the Court believes the continuing violation doctrine could apply, the Court would first need to determine whether Plaintiffs have provided any factual support for the application of the continuing violation doctrine or equitable estoppel before determining the potential scope of the putative collective action members. Otherwise, notice may issue to a significant number of employees who later would be dismissed, creating undue use of the Court’s and the parties’ resources. 1
Plaintiffs ignore that Cerjanec and some putative collective members agreed to a contractually shortened limitations period the Court previously found to be valid. 5