Advertisement

April 19, 2014

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

About the Author

Mitchell W. Quick Michael Best Friedrich LLP
Partner

Mitch Quick is a partner whose practice includes all aspects of management labor and employment law, with an emphasis on employment discrimination litigation, wrongful discharge, and wage and hour law issues. He has represented large and small manufacturing facilities, dairy cooperatives, hospitals, financial institutions, nursing homes and county and municipal employers. He is co-author of Michael Best & Friedrich’s “Guide to the Fair Labor Standards Act” and editor of the Firm’s “Wage and Hour Question of the Month.”

Mr. Quick's practice...

414-225-2755

About the Author

Partner

Paul Benson is Chair of the firm's Product and Tort Liability Litigation Focus Group and the previous Chair of the firm’s Litigation Practice Group. Mr. Benson is the leader of the Agribusiness, Food & Beverage practice, a sub-group of the firm’s Advanced Manufacturing Industry Group. Since joining the firm, Mr. Benson has been involved in litigation across the country in the areas of product liability and personal injury litigation, class action, collective action and multi-district litigation, toxic tort litigation, intellectual property litigation, insurance litigation and...

414-225-2757
Joseph Louis Olson trial attorney michael best law firm
Partner

Joe Olson is a trial attorney and a partner in firm’s Litigation Practice Group. Mr. Olson practices primarily in the areas of constitutional law, class action defense, product liability defense, employee benefits and complex commercial litigation matters.

In addition to his trial practice Mr. Olson has a successful appellate practice. Mr. Olson has handled numerous appellate cases in state and federal court and has had the pleasure of arguing before the Wisconsin Court of Appeals and the Wisconsin Supreme Court. 

414-277-3465

About the Author

benjamin a. kaplan, member, michael best law firm
Member

Benjamin Kaplan is a member of the firm’s Litigation Practice Group in the Milwaukee office. Mr. Kaplan maintains an active commercial litigation practice, including commercial torts, products liability, and contract disputes.

414-223-2504

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 Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.