Advertisement

April 16, 2014

Supreme Court Issues Opinion Reinstating Important Tool for Employers to Defeat Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective Actions

In a major victory for employers, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion on April 16, 2013, confirming employers' ability to make an "offer of judgment" to named plaintiffs who are pursuing collective actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). 

In Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk, U.S. No. 11-1059 (Apr. 16, 2013), the Court held that when an employer's offer of judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 fully satisfies the named plaintiff's FLSA claims, and no other plaintiffs have opted in, the claims become moot and the court must dismiss the entire lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Obviously, the ability to make an offer of judgment to named plaintiffs for the purpose of defeating a class action before it gains traction is a tremendous defensive tool for employers. Genesis HealthCare effectively overrules a recent decision from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which precluded the use of Rule 68 offers of judgment to "pick off" named plaintiffs early on in FLSA collective actions. See Sandoz v. Cingular Wireless, 553 F.3d 913 (5th Cir. 2008). 

© 2014 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP

About the Author

Robert E. Sheeder, Labor Law Attorney, Bracewell Giuliani Law Firm
Partner

In private practice since 1976, Bob Sheeder represents clients in all aspects of labor and employment law before federal and state agencies and courts. As head of the firm's labor and employment section, his practice includes litigation and counseling in areas of discrimination, harassment, collective actions and class actions, union organizing and wage-hour issues.

214-758-1643

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Condu