Michael Murphy, Individually and for Other Similarly Situated v. Audubon Companies, LLC, Audubon Engineering Company, L.P., and Audubon Field Solutions, LLC

Murphy v. Audubon · United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania · March 16, 2026 · No. 2:25-cv-00815

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted Michael Murphy’s motion for conditional certification of an FLSA collective action against Audubon Companies, LLC and related entities. The court found a sufficient modest factual showing that hourly Audubon field employees were similarly situated regarding the alleged exclusion of per diem and mileage payments from overtime-rate calculations. The court authorized notice with specified modifications, including a 60-day response period, a 30-day reminder, electronic distribution, and clarification that the collective was conditionally certified.

Holdings

  1. Conditional certification was warranted because Murphy presented sufficient evidence, beyond speculation, that the proposed collective members were similarly situated with respect to Audubon's alleged practice of excluding per diem and mileage payments from the regular rate used to calculate overtime.
  2. The collective should not be limited to inspectors, Pennsylvania employees, or employees identified by Audubon as having the same salary structure because the pleadings and evidence indicated that field employees, including but not limited to inspectors, were subject to the relevant pay practice in locations inside and outside Pennsylvania.
  3. The court approved a sixty-day notice period with a thirty-day reminder and authorized distribution by first-class mail, email, and text message, subject to the court's required modifications to the notice.
  4. The notice could not state that the court had allowed or certified a collective action without qualification; it had to state that the court had conditionally 'certified' a collective action.
  5. The notice should advise potential opt-in plaintiffs that joining the collective may require participation in discovery and testimony at trial.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Murphy made the modest factual showing required for conditional certification of an FLSA collective consisting of hourly Audubon employees who received per diem and mileage payments.
  2. Whether the proposed notice should be approved and, if so, whether its scope, duration, delivery methods, and content should be modified.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (20)

  • Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210-11 (3d Cir. 2009)(followed)
  • Thomas v. TEKsystems, Inc., No. 2:21-460, 2025 WL 756067, at *4 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 10, 2025)(followed)
  • Symezyk v. Genesis HealthCare Corp., 656 F.3d 189, 192-93 (3d Cir. 2011)(followed)
  • Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symezyk, 569 U.S. 66 (2013)(followed)
  • Camesi v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 729 F.3d 239, 243 (3d Cir. 2013)(followed)
  • Zavala v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 691 F.3d 527, 534, 536 & n.4 (3d Cir. 2012)(followed)
  • Kuznyetsov v. W. Penn Allegheny Health Sys., Inc., No. 10-948, 2011 WL 6372852, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 20, 2011)(followed)
  • Waltz v. Aveda Transp. & Energy Servs., Inc., No. 16-469, 2016 WL 7440267, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 27, 2016)(followed)
  • Bowser v. Empyrean Servs., LLC, 324 F.R.D. 346, 352 (W.D. Pa. 2018)(followed)
  • Shiptoski v. SMG Grp., LLC, No. 3:16-CV-1216, 2018 WL 11484967, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 31, 2018)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 20.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…