The lawsuits, filed by employees and former employees at GKN’s manufacturing plants in Alamance, Sanford, and Roxboro, North Carolina, allege that the company’s timekeeping policies forced workers to perform off-the-clock tasks before and after shifts and during meal breaks. The claims arise under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, specifically targeting alleged violations that began in 2020 after GKN changed its timekeeping policies.
These cases are a continuation of predecessor litigation, Mebane v. GKN Driveline N. Am., Inc., which dragged on for years before the court decertified classes and a collective, finding that individual issues would swamp any attempt to resolve claims on a group basis. After the predecessor case settled, plaintiffs’ counsel filed these three new suits seeking certification for both pre-2020 and post-2020 claims.
In her April 22, 2026 order, Judge Eagles held that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden to show that common issues predominate over individual questions for the proposed Rule 23 classes. The court noted that the plaintiffs failed to identify all elements of their state law claims or explain how they would efficiently prove liability and damages across three different subclasses involving at least six different forms of alleged off-the-clock work.
The court emphasized that manageability is the most critical factor in determining whether a class action is superior to other methods of adjudication. Judge Eagles found that the plaintiffs offered no concrete plan for resolving class-wide liability or individual damages, relying instead on vague references to representative proof.
Regarding the FLSA collective certification motions, the court applied a more stringent second-step analysis after discovery was complete. While acknowledging that employees at the three facilities are subject to similar policies, Judge Eagles held that the plaintiffs failed to map out which issues would involve common questions and which would require individual proof.
The court also criticized the plaintiffs’ counsel for a lack of organization and diligence, citing an "oversight" that left individual pre-2020 claims out of amended complaints and pointing to inaccurate factual representations in their briefing. Judge Eagles concluded that proceeding on a collective basis would seriously impair the fairness and efficiency interests of both the opt-in plaintiffs and the defendant.
The motions to certify conditionally as a collective action in Ayers (23-CV-581), Carson (23-CV-583), and Ferges (23-CV-585) were denied. The motions to certify a class in the same three cases were also denied.