This putative collective action alleged that Mr. Calderon and other Security Investigators were improperly characterized as "exempt" employees under the FLSA, and therefore were not paid overtime wages even though they worked in excess of forty (40) hours per work week. The Complaint contained one (1) count, which alleged that GEICO willfully violated the FLSA, and sought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs and attorney's fees. Plaintiffs moved for a conditional collective action certification and defined the proposed collective action case as "all persons who are or who have been employed by GEICO as Security Investigators at any time within the United States (exclusive of California) within three years prior to this action's filing date, through the date of the disposition of this action."

GEICO opposed conditional collective action certification, arguing that Security Investigators are not similarly situated because the job responsibilities of Security Investigators vary from one (1) regional office to another and from one (1) Security Investigator to another. GEICO further contended that a collective action in this action would not be manageable, and that Plaintiffs have waived their right to court-authorized notice by issuing their own advertisement seeking potential plaintiffs. In addition, GEICO argued that the scope of notice proposed by Plaintiffs was overbroad, and that Plaintiffs' proposed ninety (90) day notice was longer than necessary, and that granting Plaintiffs' request to send multiple reminder notices to potential class members would only stir up litigation. Finally, GEICO objected to Plaintiffs' request that GEICO be ordered to post notice of the lawsuit in GEICO workplaces and to include notice of this action in Security Investigators' next paychecks.

The Court explained that employees may maintain a collective action against their employer for violations of the FLSA, if the employees are "similarly situated." This Court uses a two-step approach to determine whether collective action treatment is warranted. First, Plaintiffs must make a "preliminary factual showing, usually by pleadings and affidavits, that a similarly situated group of potential plaintiffs exist." Plaintiffs are similarly situated when they raise a similar legal issue as to coverage, exemption, or non-payment of minimum wages or overtime arising from similar job requirements and pay provisions. The Court found that Plaintiffs "made a sufficient preliminary showing that the potential class members have similar duties." All eleven (11) Plaintiffs alleged that, while they were employed by GEICO, they routinely worked over forty (40) hours per week to investigate all files assigned to them and that they performed the same, primary job duty – investigating questionable, suspect, or fraudulent claims. The Court found GEICO's argument that this collective action will be unmanageable purely speculative.

Having concluded that conditional certification was appropriate, the Court turned to the parties' disputes regarding the scope of the Court-authorized notice. GEICO argued that Plaintiffs waived their right to court-authorized notice because Plaintiffs' counsel solicited potential plaintiffs to bring this action. The Court found this argument not supported by case law in any jurisdiction. The parties also disputed the appropriate geographic scope of the proposed notice. Because GEICO's alleged misclassification of Security Investigators appeared to be nationwide, nationwide Court-approved notice was appropriate. The Court did not, however, permit Plaintiffs' counsel to send reminder notices to potential class members. The Court found that a single notice in the form attached to the Court's Order was more than sufficient to provide notice to the potential opt-in plaintiffs who may choose to participate. Finally, the Court denied Plaintiffs' request that the Court order GEICO to produce any information regarding the social security numbers, telephone numbers, and/or dates of birth of potential opt-in plaintiffs.

In sum, because Plaintiffs made the requisite factual showing that members of the putative collection action were similarly situated, Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification and Court-Authorized Notice was granted by the Court. GEICO was ordered to provide Plaintiffs' counsel with a list of the names, last known mailing addresses, and dates of employment of current and former employees who fall within the conditionally certified class. Moreover, the notice period for putative class members to join this case was set for ninety (90) days from the date of mailing of the Court's Order.