April 27, 2017

April 26, 2017

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

April 25, 2017

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

April 24, 2017

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

What are the Strategic Implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Genesis Healthcare v. Symczyk?

A nurse's Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action against her employer was properly dismissed after the employer's offer of full relief for her individual claims rendered the case moot. That was the ruling of the US Supreme Court yesterday (April 16, 2013) in Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk.

Laura Symczyk sued Genesis, her employer, under the FLSA purportedly on behalf of herself and a group of “similarly situated” putative, unnamed claimants. Genesis made her a Rule 68 offer of judgment of $7,500. It was undisputed that the offer covered all of her individual monetary claims. Symczyk ignored the offer. After finding that no other individuals had joined her suit, the District Court ruled that Symczyk’s claim had been rendered moot by the Rule 68 offer, and dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that although her individual claim may be moot, her collective action was not.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the 5-4 majority, reversed the Third Circuit. “In the absence of any claimant’s opting in [to the FLSA collective action], respondent’s suit became moot when her individual claim became moot, because she lacked any personal interest in representing others in this action.” The majority found that once the individual class representative’s claim is satisfied, the FLSA does not authorize an employee to continue a collective action solely on behalf of “other employees similarly situated,” when those other employees have not joined the case. Thus, the presence of collective action allegations in the complaint, without more, could not prevent a finding of mootness. The fact that Symczyk had not accepted Genesis’ offer was irrelevant because both the District Court and the Third Circuit had deemed Symczyk's individual claim moot.

In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Elena Kagan argued that an “unaccepted settlement offer … is a legal nullity”, and that the Court’s Opinion would have no application in future cases as it  rested on a “bogus premise” and “serve[d] only to address a make-believe problem.”

While some employers hailed the decision as providing another strategic option to defeat the ever-growing tide of FLSA collective actions being filed against them, members of the plaintiffs’ bar take the position that the holding in this case will forever be limited to its rather unique set of facts. Only time will tell which side is right.

© MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Mitchell Quick, Michael Best Law Firm, Labor and Employment Attorney
Partner

Mitch serves as a trusted advisor to businesses on all aspects of management labor and employment law. Clients value his deep knowledge of employment and labor laws, with an emphasis on wage and hour law. Clients regularly seek his counsel regarding compliance with the many and continually changing labor and employment laws, as well as to address challenging or risky personnel situations.

Mitch has represented businesses across a range of industries, including: 

  • Large and small manufacturers

  • ...
414-225-2755
Paul E. Benson, product and tort liability litigator, michael best law firm
Partner

For more than 25 years, Paul has specialized in product liability defense, class action defense, insurance litigation, and complex commercial litigation. He is particularly well known for his work in the class action and food and beverage sectors, where he is a nationally and locally recognized speaker and thought leader on product liability issues and regulatory trends.

In all of these areas, Paul has established a reputation for outstanding results. He has used motion practice to obtain summary judgment and/or dismissal in more than half of the cases he has defended in Wisconsin State and Federal Court. He has argued multiple cases before the Wisconsin Supreme Court and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and handled numerous matters that have resulted in reported decisions across the country.

414-225-2757
Joseph Olson, Michael Best Law Firm, Employee Benefits Litigation Attorney
Partner

Joe is a trial attorney practicing primarily in the areas of class action defense, wage and hour litigation, employee benefits litigation, regulatory compliance, and complex commercial litigation. In this capacity, he:

  • Routinely helps clients deal with class actions suits across all subject matters

  • Handles all aspects of complex employment litigation including wage and hour suits arising under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and applicable state laws, plus benefits litigation...

414-277-3465
Benjamin Kaplan, Michael Best, product liability litigation, class action defense attorney,
Associate

Ben focuses on consumer protection, business tort, and class action litigation, providing careful analysis of complex issues and practical advice for resolving disputes and concerns. Ben has jury trial experience in both state and federal courts, as well as appellate experience in multiple federal appellate circuits.  

414-223-2504