Originally published by Christopher McKinney.
The Fifth Circuit has issued an opinion today that will dramatically change the process by which FLSA collective actions are certified. From the court’s opening paragraph:
“Group litigation takes various forms, with varying formality. Traditional class actions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for example, proceed under well-established procedural safeguards to ensure that the named plaintiffs are appropriate class representatives. 1 But so-called “collective actions” under the Fair Labor Standards Act proceed, well, differently, with district courts applying ad hoc tests of assorted rigor in assessing whether potential members are “similarly situated”—a phrase that § 216(b) of the FLSA leaves undefined. 2 The precision of Rule 23 provides useful guidance for when and how to certify a class; the imprecision of § 216(b), not so much. This interlocutory appeal concerns the threshold dispute of any wage-claim collective: How rigorously, and how promptly, should a district court probe whether potential members are “similarly situated” and thus entitled to court-approved notice of a pending collective action? Our circuit has neither adopted nor rejected a definitive legal standard. Today we do both, hopefully providing a workable, gatekeeping framework for assessing, at the outset of litigation, before notice is sent to potential opt-ins, whether putative plaintiffs are similarly situated—not abstractly but actually.”
I have not fully digested the case yet, but on a first reading it appears that the court has rejected the test set out in Lusardi and strives to set up a bifurcated fact-finding process requiring a rigorous litigation of the threshold “similarly-situated” issue prior to allowing notice to go out to potential class members.
Such a process will undoubtedly be welcomed by employers. However, it will serve to severely harm employees who are potential collective action members because the limitations period for their claims will continue to run while the employer slow-rolls the initial litigation process.
The U.S. Supreme Court has already been asked to address this issue in Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. v. Scott. However recent filings indicate the Chipotle case may be settled and withdrawn soon. We will have to see if this decision becomes the vehicle for the SCOTUS take up the issue.
Read the opinion here: Swales et al v. KLLM Transport Services
Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.
from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2KeprPC
via Abogado Aly Website
No comments:
Post a Comment