In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 17-1946C (Filed: June 25, 2019) ) NICOLAS A. BOGGS, et al., ) Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201- ) 219; motion to proceed anonymously. Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. ) ) Linda Lipsett, Bernstein & Lipsett, P.C., Washington, D.C., for plaintiffs. With her were Jules Bernstein and Michael Bernstein, Bernstein & Lipsett, P.C., and Daniel M. Rosenthal and Alice Hwang, James & Hoffman, P.C., Washington, D.C. Ashley Akers, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant. With her were Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, and Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Director, and Tara K. Hogan, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. OPINION AND ORDER LETTOW, Senior Judge. Plaintiffs Nicolas A. Boggs and 240 other individuals are current or former employees of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) who are or were employed as Intelligence Research Specialists, Industry Operations Investigators, Industry Operations Intelligence Specialists, or Senior Operations Officers (“ATF Agents”). They bring suit on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated seeking back pay, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs for violations of the overtime pay requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219. Pending before the court is the ATF Agents’ motion to allow them to proceed anonymously. Mot. for a Protective Order & to Permit Pls. & Putative Class Members to File their Claims Anonymously (“Pls.’ Mot.”) at 1, ECF No. 90. The ATF Agents seek to shield their identities and home addresses from public disclosure, arguing that the nature of ATF’s mission makes all employees and their families “targets for attacks and harassment by violent criminals and criminal organizations.” Id. at 1. The United States (the “government”) has responded in opposition. Def.’s Resp. to [Pls.’ Mot.] (“Def.’s Opp’n”), ECF No. 91. After the ATF Agents replied, see [Pls.’ Reply to Def.’s Opp’n] (“Pls.’ Reply”), ECF No. 92, the court held a hearing on June 6, 2019. BACKGROUND 1 ATF classified employees in the four job titles at issue as exempt from the FLSA until it changed course and reclassified the positions as non-exempt on May 1, 2018. See Boggs v. United States, 139 Fed. Cl. 375, 377 (2018). Four ATF employees representing two of the job titles at issue initiated the suit on December 14, 2017. See Compl. In due course, additional ATF employees joined, see, e.g., Pls.’ Unopposed Mot. for Leave to File Notices of Additional Consents, ECF No. 51, and in August 2018, the court certified a collective action for employees of ATF in the now-four job titles, Boggs, 139 Fed. Cl. at 379. More ATF employees subsequently joined with the latest additions occurring in November 2018. E.g., Pls.’ Unopposed Notice of Filing Additional Party-Pls. & Their Consent to Sue Forms (Nov. 20, 2018), ECF No. 83. Presently, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals