Skip to main content

FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk (11-1059)

in
Oral argument: 
December 3, 2012
Court below: 
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

In a putative collective action, Laura Symczyk alleged that Genesis HealthCare Corporation violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by automatically deducting break time from her and other employees’ pay, regardless of whether they performed compensable work during their breaks. Before any other plaintiffs joined the action, Genesis made an offer of judgment for full relief of Symczyk’s claims. Symczyk did not accept the offer, but the district court dismissed the case because the offer of judgment left Symczyk without a personal stake in the litigation. Symczyk argues that she continues to have a personal stake and that the interests of plaintiffs yet to join the action creates jurisdiction. Genesis argues that a complete offer to satisfy a lone plaintiff’s claim renders the case moot. In resolving the question presented, the Supreme Court will decide whether an unaccepted offer of judgment can render a case moot and whether courts may consider the interests of unnamed, hypothetical parties in determining whether the parties have a personal stake in the litigation. The decision will affect collective-action trial practices for both plaintiffs and defendants, including plaintiffs’ use of the discovery process to join class members and defendants’ use of individual offers of judgment to forestall or avoid collective actions.

Questions Presented: 

Whether a case becomes moot, and thus beyond the judicial power of Article III, when the lone plaintiff receives an offer from the defendants to satisfy all of the plaintiff’s claims.

Issue

Does a purported collective action become moot, and thus beyond the judicial power of Article III, when the lone plaintiff in the case receives a complete offer of judgment from the defendants and all other potential plaintiffs have not yet joined the case?

top

Written by: 
Thomas Santoro
Stephen Wirth
Edited by: 
Brandon Bodnar
Additional Resources: 

Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. (11-204)

in

Oral argument: April 16, 2012

Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Feb. 14, 2011)

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”) requires employers to pay employees one-and-a-half times their normal wages for any time worked over forty hours in a given week, but exempts “outside salesmen” from this overtime pay requirement. Respondent GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) refused to pay overtime to petitioners Michael Christopher and Frank Buchanan, whom it employed as pharmaceutical sales representatives, because it considered them to be “outside salesmen.” Christopher and Buchanan sued, arguing that they were not “outside salesmen” under the Secretary of Labor’s interpretation. The Supreme Court will determine whether that interpretation is entitled to deference and whether Christopher and Buchanan are subject to the FLSA’s outside salesman exemption.

Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics, Corp. (09-834)

in

Oral argument: Oct. 13, 2010

Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Oct. 15, 2009)

LABOR, FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, ANTI-RETALIATION

Petitioner Kevin Kasten sued his employer, Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics, Corp., alleging that Saint-Gobain terminated his employment in retaliation for his oral complaints regarding the location of the company's time clocks. Kasten alleges that Section 215(a)(3) of the Fair Labor Standards Act protects employees who make oral complaints from employer retaliation. However, Saint-Gobain asserts that Section 215(a)(3) only protects written complaints made to governmental authorities. The Seventh Circuit held that Section 215(a)(3) only protects written employee complaints. The Supreme Court’s decision will affect several aspects of the employer-employee relationship, including informal dispute resolution procedures in the workplace and employees’ abilities to raise their grievances without fear of retaliation.

Syndicate content