The opinion of the court was delivered by: Matthew F. Kennelly, District Judge:
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Linda M. Berry and Crystal Barnett have sued Quick Test, Inc. and MVL Group Inc. They assert claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), as well as supplemental Illinois law claims. Plaintiffs have moved for the Court to conditionally certify the case as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and authorize notice to similarly situated Quick Test employees. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants plaintiffs' motion in part and denies it in part.
Quick Test, a subsidiary of MVL, performs market research for businesses. Among other activities, Quick Test has offices at shopping malls where it interviews consumers. It has more than forty mall locations across the country, including two in Illinois.
Plaintiffs both worked for Quick Test at a mall in Joliet, Illinois. They received an hourly wage from Quick Test, and Quick Test tracked the hours that they worked through use of a time clock located at the Joliet office. Barnett worked as an interviewer for about three months in 2010. Berry was hired as an interviewer in May 2008 and was promoted to supervisor in January 2010. Quick Test fired Berry in May 2011, claiming that she had falsified consumer surveys.
Plaintiffs claim that Quick Test violated the FLSA by forcing them to work off the clock and thus not paying them the overtime wages to which they were entitled under the law. They claim that they were forced to perform the initial step of the consumer interviews at home and on their own time. They also claim that they were forced to work off the clock at Quick Test's Joliet offices and that they saw other employees doing the same. Plaintiffs argue that they were forced to work off the clock because Quick Test imposed quotas on employees requiring that they conduct a certain number of interviews and that these quotas were unrealistic and could not be completed in the employees' scheduled working hours. Plaintiffs claim that the manager of Quick Test Joliet location, Lisa Beltemacchi, responded to the quotas and demands to reduce labor costs by ordering workers to work off the clock.
The FLSA provides that employers must pay an employee who works more than forty hours in one work week at one and one-half times the employee's regular rate of pay for the time over forty hours. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). Employers must also pay employees at least $7.25 per hour. Id. § 206(a)(1).
Pursuant to the FLSA, "any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated" may sue an employer through a collective action to recover unpaid overtime or minimum wages. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Once an FLSA action is filed, district courts have "managerial responsibility to oversee the joinder of additional parties to assure that the task is accomplished in an efficient and proper way." Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 171 (1989); accord Alvarez v. City of Chicago, 605 F.3d 445, 449 (7th Cir. 2010) ("A district court has wide discretion to manage collective actions.").
"Courts commonly apply a two-part test to determine whether an FLSA claim may proceed as a collective action." Russell v. Ill. Bell. Tel. Co., 721 F. Supp. 2d 804, 811 (N.D. Ill. 2010); see Smallwood v. Ill. Bell. Tel. Co., 710 F. Supp. 2d 746, 750 (N.D.
Ill. 2010) (noting that Seventh Circuit has not adopted a standard but that a majority of courts use the two-part test). The first stage is conditional certification. "In the first step, Plaintiffs only need to make a minimal showing that others in the potential class are similarly situated." Jirak v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 566 F. Supp. 2d 845, 847 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). At this stage, plaintiffs "need only make a modest factual showing sufficient to demonstrate that they and potential plaintiffs together were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law." Smallwood, 710 F. Supp. 2d at 750 (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Jirak, 566 F. Supp. 2d at 848.
Although the inquiry is undemanding, the court is under no obligation, as it would be on a motion to dismiss, to accept the plaintiff's allegations as true. Rather, the court evaluates the record before it, including the defendant's oppositional affidavits, to determine whether the plaintiffs are similarly situated to other putative class members.
Rottman v. Old Second Bancorp, Inc., 735 F. Supp. 2d 988, 990 (N.D. Ill. 2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Other courts have stated that at the first stage, plaintiffs must make "substantial allegations of class-wide discrimination, that is, detailed allegations supported by affidavits which successfully engage defendants' affidavits to the contrary." Grayson v. K Mart Corp., 79 F.3d 1086, 1097 (11th Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Trezvant v. Fid. Empl'r Servs. Corp., 434 F. Supp. 2d 40, 43 & n.2 (D. Mass. 2006).
Plaintiffs contend that the Court should conditionally certify a collective action including all persons employed by Quick Test nationwide as hourly employees within the past three years. Defendants argue that plaintiffs have not satisfied their burden for a nationwide ...