Over the past several years, many federal courts have weighed in on whether a key Supreme Court decision requires them to dismiss non-resident opt-in plaintiffs in federal wage and hour collective actions, and there is now disagreement among appeals courts about how to proceed. Just last month, the First Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision disagreeing with prior decisions from the Sixth and Eighth Circuits, declining to extend the helpful SCOTUS ruling to Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective actions. While these prior decisions provided clarity, guidance, and a favorable outlook for employers, last month’s First Circuit decision blew up all those positive effects and left employers feeling confused. Given the ongoing debate over the applicability of the SCOTUS ruling and the new circuit split, what do employers need to know?
A Closer Look at the Key SCOTUS Ruling
In 2017, the Supreme Court handed down a helpful decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California. The case involved a group of close to 700 plaintiffs who filed multiple complaints in California state courts asserting products liability and other claims under state law. The plaintiffs claimed they suffered injuries from a drug sold and manufactured by a pharmaceutical company that was not headquartered or incorporated in California and that maintained “substantial operations” outside of California. Pursuant to a state procedural rule, the plaintiffs combined their lawsuits into...
The HHS secretary touted a proposed $1.1 billion IHS budget increase but stayed silent on Medicaid cuts and a rollback of childhood vaccination efforts U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robe...