The Ninth Circuit's decision in Harrington v. Cracker Barrel underscores the growing importance of personal jurisdiction in limiting the scope of FLSA collective actions.

Seyfarth Synopsis: The Ninth Circuit's decision in Harrington v. Cracker Barrel underscores the growing importance of personal jurisdiction in limiting the scope of FLSA collective actions. The court held that employees with no connection to the forum state may not be able to join a lawsuit filed there, even if they share similar claims. This ruling offers employers a strategic tool to challenge nationwide wage and hour claims and contain litigation risk in multi-state operations.

When a group of employees sues a large company like Cracker Barrel, one of the first questions the court has to answer is not about wages or hours—it's about where the lawsuit is happening and who the court has power over. This issue – personal jurisdiction – played a key role in the Ninth Circuit's recent decision, Harrington v. Cracker Barrel.

Personal jurisdiction determines whether a court has the authority to make decisions about a particular person or company.

There are two types of personal jurisdiction:

1. General jurisdiction: A court has broad authority over a person or business that is "at home" in the state. For corporate defendants like Cracker Barrel, that typically means the state in which the defendant is incorporated or has its principal place of business.
2. Specific jurisdiction: A court can hear a case if the...

Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMi7AFBVV95cUxNTUNIS29SR0dLQkM1UDlXNm1o...