members; Plaintiffs and putative class members all have to log onto the computer, boot up several computer programs, and perform other duties before accepting calls; Qwest uses the same scheduling system at all call centers nationwide; and Qwest uses the same “Mission Control” monitoring procedures at all call centers. Although the availability requirements vary for different job titles, at this stage of the litigation, the relevant similarities make conditional certification appropriate. Furthermore, at this stage, Plaintiffs are not required to provide evidence showing Qwest’s illegal practice at every location or that Plaintiffs are identically situated to putative class members in all respects. See, e.g., Hipp v. Liberty Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 252 F.3d 1208, 1217 (11th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted). The Court now turns to
recognizing that in appropriate circumstances the court may limit the parties communications with putative class members prior to decision on conditional certification question in a  216b action holding that entry of settlement decree without notice to putative class members violated the due process rights of the class members holding that it is not necessary that all putative class members share identical claims holding that under  216b pjlaintiffs need show only that their positions are similar not identical to the positions held by the putative class members holding that putative class members are not parties to an action prior to class certification