Employment: Conditional certification granted in off-the-clock suit

Where the plaintiff alleged that all putative opt-in members worked for the defendants as coal miners, were subject to the same Mine Safety and Health Administration requirements and company policies and were required to perform pre- and post-shift work because of those policies without receiving proper compensation, his motion for conditional certification was granted.

Background

Mark Matney filed this hybrid collective and class action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated alleging that the defendants failed to compensate employees for off-the-clock work in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, or FLSA, and the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act, or KWHA. The plaintiff alleged that, since March 28, 2023, the defendants have not altered their policy of permitting or requiring employees to engage in off-the-clock work without proper compensation. Before this court is the plaintiff’s motion for order facilitating notice to similarly-situated employees.

Standard

Courts in the Fourth Circuit follow a two-stage approach to certification under the FLSA. At the first stage, the court determines whether the plaintiffs have demonstrated that the putative opt-in members are “similarly situated” and that court-facilitated notice to the members would be appropriate.

The standard for conditional certification is “fairly lenient” and requires only “minimal evidence,” such as factual evidence asserted through affidavits. Further, the merits of the claims asserted are not relevant at this stage. The court generally proceeds to the second stage if, after discovery, the defendant files a motion for decertification, at which point the court applies a heightened standard to the similarly situated analysis.

Collective members have been found to be similarly situated when they “raise a similar legal issue as to coverage, exemption, or nonpayment of minimum wages or overtime arising from at least a manageably similar factual setting with respect to their job requirements and pay provisions.” However, the “similarly situated” requirement does not prohibit differences among collective members or individualized inquiries.

Analysis

According to the plaintiff, all putative opt-in members worked for the defendants as coal miners, were subject to the same Mine Safety and Health Administration requirements and company policies, and were required to perform pre- and post-shift work because of those policies — including donning and doffing protective gear, calibrating safety equipment and storing tools — without receiving proper compensation. Moreover, the defendants do not contest the conditional certification of the collective action.

I find that the plaintiff has made a “modest factual showing sufficient to demonstrate that they and potential plaintiffs together were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law,” and that there is “some factual nexus connecting them to other potential plaintiffs as victims of an unlawful policy.” I will grant conditional certification.

Although the defendants do not contest conditional certification, the parties disagree as to the method of notification to putative opt-in plaintiffs, whether notice should be posted in the workplace, whether reminder notices should be issued and the length of the opt-in period. As this court has previously held, notification through U.S. mail is both appropriate and sufficient. For those reasons, I also find notice in the workplace to be unnecessary and duplicative.

With respect to reminder notices, I agree with the defendants that issuing multiple notices may be impermissibly perceived as encouraging prospective plaintiffs to opt in. I therefore find that a reminder notice shall be limited to instances in which the plaintiff demonstrates to the court that the initial notice did not reach the intended individual. Lastly, the plaintiff has set forth no reasons as to why an extended opt-in period is warranted. I find that a 60-day opt-in period is sufficient.

Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification granted.

Matney v. United Coal Company LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00021, Nov. 20, 2025. WDVA at Abingdon (Jones). VLW 025-3-482. 6 pp.