US District Court MDNC Docket Feed

GKN Driveline FLSA Collective Certification Denied

Three consolidated wage-and-hour lawsuits against GKN Driveline North America Inc. in the Middle District of North Carolina resulted in denial of FLSA collective and Rule 23 class certification motions. The cases involve three manufacturing plants in Alamance, Sanford, and Roxboro, with plaintiffs alleging off-the-clock work before shifts, after shifts, and during meal breaks under GKN's timekeeping policies. Chief District Judge Catherine C. Eagles found that individual issues would swamp any attempt to resolve the claims on a class or collective basis, concluding the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that proceeding as a class or collective would be more efficient and economical.

Ayers v. GKN Driveline - Class, Collective Certification Denied

Chief Judge Catherine C. Eagles denied plaintiffs' motions to certify FLSA collectives and Rule 23 classes in three consolidated wage-and-hour lawsuits against GKN Driveline North America, Inc., finding plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that class or collective adjudication would be more efficient and economical than individual proceedings. The lawsuits allege GKN's timekeeping policies forced employees at three North Carolina manufacturing plants to work off-the-clock before and after shifts and during meal breaks, continuing disputes from a predecessor case initiated in 2018. The Court found individual issues would overwhelm any attempt to resolve the claims on a class or collective basis.

GKN Driveline Denied Class and FLSA Collective Certification

The US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina denied motions to certify both a Rule 23 class and an FLSA collective in three consolidated wage-and-hour lawsuits against GKN Driveline North America, Inc. The plaintiffs alleged the company forced employees at three manufacturing plants to work off-the-clock before and after shifts and during meal breaks through timekeeping policies including 'rounding' and 'auto-deduction' practices. The court found that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that class or collective treatment would be more efficient and economical than individual adjudication, with individual issues likely to swamp any attempt at resolution on a group basis.