CHICAGO (LN) — U.S. District Judge Joan B. Gottschall on Thursday granted a motion to send notice in a proposed collective action alleging Allied First Bank, S.B. misclassified mortgage loan originators and other staff as exempt from overtime pay. The court ruled the bank did not carry its burden to show employees received the required fixed weekly salary.
The four named plaintiffs — Christina Fischer, Renard Batu, Anthony Seguna, and Leslie Pier — sued the national consumer bank and its affiliates. They claimed the employer treated them as commission-only employees exempt from the FLSA’s overtime mandate despite working more than 40 hours per week.
Allied First Bank opposed the motion, arguing the plaintiffs failed to show the proposed collectives were similarly situated under the Seventh Circuit’s standard set in Richards v. Eli Lilly & Co. The bank submitted nine employment agreements showing variations in duties, locations, and compensation structures among opt-in plaintiffs.
Gottschall found that the plaintiffs met the threshold burden by producing evidence of a material factual dispute regarding a common unlawful practice. The court relied on the declaration of plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Liesl Fox, who analyzed pay data for 16 plaintiffs and found no evidence that the bank satisfied the salary basis test, which requires a predetermined weekly salary of at least $684 for certain exempt employees.
Gottschall wrote that Allied First Bank bears the burden to prove the bona fide executive exemption applies, making Dr. Fox’s reliance on the subset of pay records the bank elected to produce reasonable and evidentially sufficient at this procedural stage.
The judge noted that the bank and plaintiffs “effectively talk past each other” because the bank focused on the duties and classification elements of the exemption, while plaintiffs focused on the salary basis test. Because all elements of the exemption must be proven for the defense to succeed, Gottschall ruled that the plaintiffs’ preliminary showing on the salary issue was sufficient to warrant notice.
Gottschall rejected the bank’s argument that differences among the four proposed collectives would stymie efficient adjudication, noting that subclassing could manage those issues later. The court deferred a final certification decision until after notice is sent and more employees have opted in.
The parties must file a proposed order authorizing notice by May 14, 2026.