In an order dated October 14, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona conditionally certified a collective of salaried claims examiners in Weeks v. Matrix Absence Management, Inc., Case No. CV-20-00884-PHX-SPL. In this claims examiner overtime lawsuit, the workers were Claims Examination Employees whom Matrix classified as exempt from overtime. The court granted their motion for step-one notice “as modified.”
The plaintiffs sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to recover allegedly unpaid overtime wages. The order describes Matrix as a Japanese corporation that administers disability and leave absence claims in the U.S. The Siegel Law Group, with co-counsel, represented the plaintiffs.
The Honorable Steven P. Logan, United States District Judge, signed the order on October 14, 2020, and it was filed October 15, 2020. He granted the Motion for Step-One Notice “as modified” and conditionally certified a collective under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
The order states that the collective “consists of all individuals employed by Defendant as Claims Examination Employees in the last three years who were paid on a salary basis and classified by Defendant as exempt from overtime compensation.” It included, without limitation, all workers in Claims Examination Employee job titles in the last three years. The motion listed 22 such job titles.
Matrix argued that its claims examiners fell into four groups whose duties varied significantly. The groups were Leave of Absence (LOA), Short Term Disability (STD), Long Term Disability (LTD), and Absence Management Specialist (AMS) examiners.
The court looked at Matrix’s own job descriptions. All the positions worked in the operations division and reported to the supervisor of integrated claims. All involved investigating leave claims, deciding eligibility, and communicating approvals and/or denials. The court concluded: These descriptions, though not identical, certainly show a sufficient similarity to allow conditional class certification.
The plaintiffs’ evidence included the complaint, declarations from attorney Jack Siegel, declarations from eleven Claim Examiners at Matrix, and a job description. Matrix called the declarations “carbon copies” of each other. The court answered: Here, though the declarations are identical, they are neither vague nor conclusory.
Notice terms. The court approved the amended Notice and Consent Form attached as Exhibit D to the plaintiffs’ Reply. Its other terms were:
The court rejected Matrix’s request that an outside company handle notice. It held that the Notice did not need to warn workers that they may have to take part in discovery or pay costs. Noting that people were relying on email more than ever during the COVID-19 pandemic, the court allowed email notice.
What “as modified” meant. The order does not list the changes in one place, but it shows that the plaintiffs agreed not to send notice by text message.
According to the examiners’ declarations, they could deny a claim without a supervisor’s approval only if the claimant failed to send needed documents. They could approve or deny claims only based on whether the claims met specific, predetermined criteria set by Matrix. When the criteria were met, they sent a template approval letter from Matrix. The court found these allegations showed a level of control by Matrix common to all plaintiffs.
The FLSA generally requires employers to pay time and one-half for hours over forty in a workweek. The statute exempts persons employed in a “bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity.” As the order notes, the employer has the burden of showing that an exemption applies. The order does not say which exemption Matrix relied on.
As general information, the administrative exemption takes more than a salary. The worker’s main duty must be office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer or its customers. That main duty must also include the exercise of discretion and independent judgment on matters of significance.
Workers must give written consent to join a collective action (“opt in”). The court applied, at the time of this 2020 order, a two-step approach. First came a lenient notice stage that asked only whether the workers were “similarly situated,” and after discovery the employer could move to decertify. Some federal appeals courts have since changed this approach — the Fifth Circuit in Swales v. KLLM Transport Services (2021) and the Sixth Circuit in Clark v. A&L Homecare & Training Center (2023).
Read more about how collective action certification works.
This page describes a 2020 court order. The time to join that collective was set by the court in that case. If you have worked in a similar role, the Siegel Law Group can evaluate your own claims.
Have you worked as a disability or leave claims examiner, such as an LOA, STD, LTD, or AMS examiner? Were you paid a salary and classified as exempt, and did you often work more than 40 hours a week without overtime pay? A lawyer can review how you were paid. Time limits apply, so learn about the FLSA statute of limitations and contact the Siegel Law Group for a free consultation.
Related rulings: Heckle v. Matrix Absence, another overtime case against Matrix Absence Management, Blackstone v. Dearborn Life, another case for salaried disability claims staff, and Loomis v. Unum, another case for salaried disability claims staff.
It depends on their actual duties, not their title or salary. A Department of Labor rule says insurance claims adjusters generally meet the duties test of the administrative exemption if their work includes tasks such as evaluating coverage, determining liability, and negotiating settlements (29 C.F.R. § 541.203(a)). Whether a given examiner fits depends on the work actually done. The order in Weeks v. Matrix did not decide whether anyone was exempt.
Not automatically. A job label alone does not decide the question. In Weeks v. Matrix, the court rejected the employer’s argument that differences among its LOA, STD, LTD, and AMS examiners defeated conditional certification. It did not decide whether anyone was exempt.
They can if a court finds they are similarly situated. Positions must be similar, not identical. In Weeks v. Matrix, the court found that the positions in all four claim groups appeared to handle the same core tasks. Those tasks were investigating claims, deciding eligibility, and communicating approvals and denials.
In Weeks v. Matrix, it meant court-approved notice could reach examiners in all four claim groups Matrix described: LOA, STD, LTD, and AMS. Matrix called the eleven examiners’ declarations “carbon copies” of each other. The court found that, though identical, the declarations were detailed and were neither vague nor conclusory. The order did not decide whether any examiner was exempt or owed overtime.
Generally, the FLSA allows a claims examiner two years from each underpaid payday to recover unpaid overtime, or three years for a willful violation (§ 255(a) of the Act). A claims examiner who opts in generally has the claim treated as filed on the day the examiner’s signed opt-in consent is docketed in the case (§ 256(b)). So a claims examiner who waits may recover less.
The Siegel Law Group is a national overtime and wage law firm devoted entirely to representing workers denied overtime pay. Where many firms include wage cases as a small part of a broader employment practice, the Siegel Law Group has built its entire practice around overtime litigation — and the results reflect that commitment: $100M+ recovered for workers, 50+ class and collective action certifications, and 100+ federal lawsuits filed in 27+ federal courts nationwide. Founding attorney Jack Siegel is a Bloomberg BNA contributing author on wage and hour law.
Free consultation. Contingency fee — no fee unless we win.
Phone: (214) 790-4454 | Email: [email protected]
This website contains attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Search by company or industry to see overtime case activity.
Case information shown is from public court filings and approved settlements. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
