Judge Jenkins's Case Procedures
Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Action Cases
|
|
The Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) has a statute of limitations period of two years or three years for willful violations.
Smith v. Pro. Transp., Inc.,
5 F.4th 700, 701 (7th Cir. 2021). Under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), a plaintiff in an FLSA case may seek to certify the case as a collective action on behalf of similarly situated individuals who later opt in, but unlike a putative class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the filing of a FLSA collective action does not automatically toll the limitations period with respect to plaintiffs who later opt in.
Compare Hunter v. WirelessPCS Chi. LLC,
2022 WL 864533, at *10 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 23, 2022) (“Under the FLSA, the statute of limitations continues to run for each potential plaintiff until he or she opts in to the lawsuit.”),
with China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh,
138 S. Ct. 1800, 1806 (2018) (“The commencement of the original class suit tolls the running of the statute of limitations for all purported members of the class who make timely motions to intervene after the court has found the suit inappropriate for class action status.”). Although some circuit judges have suggested the same rule should apply to FLSA collective actions,
see Clark v. A&L Homecare & Training Ctr.,
LLC, 68 F.4th 1003 (6th Cir. 2023) (separate opinions of Bush, J., and White, J.), the Seventh Circuit has not decided this issue, and courts in this district have not adopted a uniform practice,
see, e.g., Hunter,
2022 WL 864533, at *11–13;
Calloway v. AT & T Corp.,
419 F. Supp. 3d 1031, 1034–38 (N.D. Ill. 2019);
Pfefferkorn v. PrimeSource Health Grp.,
LLC (2019 WL 354968, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 29, 2019);
Nick v. Koch Meat Co., Inc.,
265 F. Supp. 3d 841, 858–59 (N.D. Ill. 2017);
Davis v. Vanguard Home Care, LLC,
2016 WL 7049069, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 5, 2016);
Soto v. Wings ’R Us Romeoville, Inc.,
2016 WL 4701444, at *9–12 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 8, 2016);
Sylvester v. Wintrust Fin. Corp.,
2014 WL 10416989, at *1–4 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 26, 2014);
Bergman v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc.,
949 F. Supp. 2d 852, 860-61 (N.D. Ill. June 11, 2013).
Given the uncertain legal basis for the Court to toll the statute of limitations as to future opt-in plaintiffs, the Court’s typical practice is to expedite FLSA collective action cases to ensure that the question of conditional certification is timely decided.
See Clark,
68 F.4th at 1016-17 (6th Cir. 2023) (separate opinion of White, J.) (“It is essential that courts move quickly under the FLSA because the statute of limitations is not automatically tolled at filing for similarly situated plaintiffs who have yet to opt in.”). Under an expedited schedule, unless the parties agree otherwise, motions are briefed on shorter timelines than in a typical case, and the Court will not stay other proceedings during settlement negotiations or entertain motions not essential to resolve before the issue of conditional certification. The parties’ joint initial status report in an FLSA collective action case must include: (1) whether the plaintiff wishes to proceed on an expedited basis, and (2) the parties’ positions on whether the statute of limitations should be tolled with respect to any future opt-in plaintiffs. In particular, each defendant should indicate whether it agrees to toll the statute of limitations for individuals who opt in to this case from the date on which this case was filed until the date the Court rules on the issue of conditional certification. If the defendant believes a shorter tolling period is appropriate, it may agree to such a
period with the plaintiff or propose such a period to the Court. If the plaintiff wishes to proceed on an expedited basis and there is no tolling agreement, the parties should indicate any discovery needed to be taken and motions anticipated to be filed before conditional certification, and why such discovery or motion must precede conditional certification. The parties should indicate any questions or points of disagreement regarding tolling in the joint status report and come to the initial status conference prepared to discuss those issues.
|
|
Note: The court does not control nor can it guarantee the accuracy, relevance, timeliness, or completeness of this information. Neither is it intended to endorse any view expressed nor reflect its importance by inclusion in this site.
#CMPID1431
|