Abstract: The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), passed by Congress in 1938, sets federal workplace standards and protects over 100 million workers in the United States. The FLSA also includes a collective action provision, which allows workers to privately sue their employers for FLSA violations in a unique way. A collective action lawsuit is a distinct form of aggregate litigation that allows an employee to sue their employer for FLSA violations on behalf of other similarly situated employees in one action. Similarly situated employees who wish to join a collective action must affirmatively opt in and consent to participate in the suit. Collective actions provide an efficient and cost-effective route for harmed workers to seek redress while helping ensure compliance with the FLSA.
Before a court can adjudicate a civil lawsuit, including a collective action, it must have personal jurisdiction over the parties. In 2017, the United States Supreme Court complicated personal jurisdiction jurisprudence in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California (“BMS”) by holding that a court must have personal jurisdiction in the forum state over a defendant with respect to each plaintiff’s claim in a mass action lawsuit. Currently, there is a lopsided circuit split regarding whether BMS applies to FLSA collective action lawsuits. The Third, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Circuit Courts have all applied BMS to FLSA collective actions, whereas the First Circuit has declined to apply BMS. The Supreme Court is silent on this issue. Circuits that apply BMS to FLSA collective actions require a connection between the forum state, the defendant, and each opt-in plaintiff’s claim to establish specific personal jurisdiction, often dismissing many opt-in plaintiffs who have nearly identical claims to the original named plaintiff. This Note argues that contrary to the weight of circuit precedent, BMS should not apply to FLSA collective actions, and courts need only assess personal jurisdiction with respect to the defendant and the named plaintiff. The purposes of the FLSA and personal jurisdiction are best served when all similarly situated harmed workers can seek redress for FLSA violations in a fair and efficient manner.
