No. 37 at 3-5); • Cancellations of missed meal breaks by employees are not common because it is HCR’s policy that if the employee gets even a short break to eat, then that employee was considered to have a meal break; employees are also regularly not compensated for interrupted meal breaks (Creely Doc. No. 36 at 5); The case law regarding the weight this Court should attribute to Plaintiffs’ declarations in support of their claims is, at best, mixed. On one hand, some courts have held such declarations, in which the named plaintiffs witnessed or believed other employees worked through their meal breaks without receiving compensation, do not help meet the burden of showing a class of similarly situated employees exists. Landsberg v. Acton Enters., 2006 WL 3742221, at *3 (S.D.Ohio 2006) (<HOLDING>). On the other hand, other courts have held
holding that mere conjecture or speculation is insufficient under a preponderance standard holding that speculation that other employees working under other supervisors were not properly paid is insufficient to justify notice to the class holding that mere speculation is insufficient to support a jury verdict holding speculation insufficient to avoid summary judgment holding that notice of judgment was insufficient