Part of our claims examiner cases →
The Siegel Law Group helped secure a Rule 23 class certification victory in the Matrix Absence Management overtime class action. In Heckle v. Matrix Absence Management, Case No. 21 CV 1463 (VB) (S.D.N.Y.), the court certified a Rule 23(b)(3) class under the New York Labor Law (NYLL) for Telephonic Claims Examiners denied overtime pay at Matrix's Hawthorne, New York office.
On December 14, 2022, Judge Vincent Briccetti certified a Rule 23(b)(3) class under the NYLL and appointed class counsel. The court found that common questions — particularly whether the TCEs' standardized duties qualified for the administrative exemption — predominated over individual issues. The evidence showed that TCEs across the Hawthorne office performed the same core duties under the same constraints, making class treatment appropriate.
The Siegel Law Group brought claims under the NYLL on behalf of TCEs whose work was governed by Matrix Best Practices manuals, decision templates, "cheat sheets," and mandatory supervisor review of all claim denials.
Rule 23 class certification is a powerful tool for overtime workers. Unlike an FLSA collective action — where workers must affirmatively opt in — a Rule 23 class action automatically includes all affected workers unless they choose to opt out. This typically results in far larger classes and greater employer accountability.
This ruling was a powerful illustration of why misclassification claims are well-suited for class treatment: when an employer applies the same exemption classification to an entire group of workers performing the same standardized duties, the legality of that classification is a common question that can be resolved for everyone at once.
Telephonic Claims Examiners at Matrix processed disability and leave-of-absence claims using highly standardized procedures. Despite this tightly controlled work environment, Matrix classified them as exempt from overtime. Under both the FLSA and the NYLL, the administrative exemption requires the exercise of discretion and independent judgment — a standard that is difficult to meet when workers follow scripts, templates, and mandatory review protocols.
Rule 23(b)(3) certification requires that common questions of law or fact predominate over individual questions and that a class action is superior to other methods of adjudication. The misclassification of claims examiners who all perform the same standardized duties under the same policies is a textbook example of a case that satisfies these requirements.
If you are a claims examiner, telephonic reviewer, or disability claims processor who was classified as exempt from overtime, this ruling shows that courts recognize these roles often do not meet the administrative exemption standard. The NYLL and similar state overtime laws may provide additional protections beyond the FLSA, including longer statutes of limitations and different damages calculations.
Rule 23 class certification allows a lawsuit to proceed on behalf of all affected workers as a class. Unlike an FLSA collective action where workers must opt in, a Rule 23 class automatically includes all similarly situated workers unless they affirmatively opt out. This means more workers benefit from the outcome without having to take individual action.
Class certification creates strength in numbers. It allows workers to share the cost of litigation, present common evidence about the employer's pay practices, and hold the employer accountable for its policies affecting all workers — not just the named plaintiffs. Employers facing certified classes often have greater incentive to settle for fair amounts.
In an FLSA collective action, workers must affirmatively opt in by filing a consent form. In a Rule 23 class action, all similarly situated workers are automatically included unless they opt out. Rule 23 classes are typically larger because many workers who would not take the affirmative step of opting in still benefit from being automatically included.
Yes. The New York Labor Law (NYLL) provides overtime protections that may exceed those under the FLSA. New York workers can pursue claims under both federal and state law simultaneously, and the NYLL has a six-year statute of limitations — significantly longer than the FLSA's two- or three-year limit.
Workers are similarly situated when they share common job duties, are subject to the same pay policies, and were classified the same way by the employer. In misclassification cases, if the employer applied a blanket "exempt" classification to a group of workers who all performed standardized duties, those workers are typically found to be similarly situated.
Yes. Former employees can participate in overtime class and collective actions as long as their claims fall within the applicable statute of limitations. Under the FLSA, claims can go back two years (three years for willful violations). Under the NYLL, claims can go back six years.
If you did this kind of work for another employer and weren't paid overtime for hours over 40, tell us your job title, your employer and the state you worked in. We'll tell you plainly whether we think you have a case. Federal law makes it illegal to retaliate against you for asking.
Siegel Law Group PLLC concentrates in unpaid overtime cases under the FLSA and state wage laws. The firm has filed more than 100 federal overtime cases, obtained 50+ class and collective certifications in 20 federal judicial districts across 15 states, and recovered more than $100 million for workers. It has never represented an employer in a wage case. Free consultation. Contingency fee: we advance case costs, and they are repaid from any recovery. No recovery, no fee and no costs. Phone: (214) 790-4454 | Email: [email protected]
These are results in other people's cases. Every case depends on its own facts and law. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. This website contains attorney advertising.
Attorney responsible: Jack L. Siegel, Siegel Law Group PLLC, Dallas, Texas.
Automated chat. Not legal advice, not a substitute for an attorney, and using it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Send your job title and how you are paid — no documents, no detailed case facts. An inquiry does not by itself stop the firm from representing someone else in a related matter.
Attorney advertising. Jack L. Siegel of Siegel Law Group PLLC, Dallas, Texas, is responsible for this content.
Before you start
We opened this box, not you. The notice above applies. Start when you are ready, or close it and nothing happens.
Search by company or industry to see overtime case activity.
This is a list of cases this firm filed. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
"Certified" means a judge agreed the case could go forward for a group of workers at once, not just the one person who filed it. It is a step in the case, not the end of it.
Attorney advertising. Case information shown is taken from public court filings and court-approved settlements in cases this firm brought. Every case turns on its own facts and on the law of the court where it is heard. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome, and a certification or ruling in one case does not guarantee the same result in another. Nothing on this page is legal advice, and reading it or sending a message does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Jack L. Siegel of Siegel Law Group PLLC, Dallas, Texas, is responsible for the content of this page. He appears in federal courts in other states by admission to those courts or by leave of court, and is not licensed in every state shown in this list.
