Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION TIMOTHY WOODS and KIMBERLY GIBSON, On Behalf Of Themselves And All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. CAREMARK PHC, L.L.C. d/b/a CVS CAREMARK CORPORATON and CAREMARK, L.L.C. Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 4:14-cv-583-SRB

ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion and Memorandum in Support of their Motion for Conditional Certification Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). (Doc. #108). The Court finds for purposes of conditional certification, Plaintiffs have established a colorable basis for their claim that the putative collective members were victims of a single decision, policy, or plan implemented by Defendants (“Caremark/CVS”) resulting in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Upon consideration of the parties’ briefing and exhibits, as well as the record made at the in-person hearing on May 24, 2016, and for the reasons stated more fully below, the motion (Doc. #108) is GRANTED. I.

Background Plaintiffs brought this collective action under the FLSA on behalf of themselves and

“similarly situated” employees of Caremark/CVS. Plaintiffs allege they, along with other Customer Care Representatives, performed pre-shift work for which they were not paid in violation of the FLSA. On February 20, 2015, the Court granted conditional certification of an FLSA collective action including “all current and former [Caremark] non-exempt hourly CCRs

Case 4:14-cv-00583-SRB Document 141 Filed 08/02/16 Page 1 of 8

Conditional Certification Granted Against CVS  

Conditionally certified class includes over 14,000 customer service representatives who will receive notice and the chance to join the CVS H...

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you