As the volume of FLSA litigation remains high, an impediment to resolving such cases (even where the underlying claimant’s wage claim already has been resolved) is the issue of the appropriate fee to be paid to counsel representing the worker pursuant to the fee shifting provision of the FLSA and/or applicable state labor law.
29 usc 216(b)
5-4 Supreme Court Affirms Dismissal of Collective Action Based on Employer’s Settlement Offer
By Noel P. Tripp on
Posted in Litigation
Issuing its second sharply divided procedural opinion in as many months with ramifications for wage-and-hour practitioners, the Supreme Court yesterday ruled that a Pennsylvania nursing facility’s “offer of judgment,” which would have provided full relief to the sole putative collective action representative, effectively “mooted” her case. Accordingly, no collective action could proceed even though the…
In Affirming Decision to Deny Class Certification, Second Circuit Clarifies Standard Applicable to Motion for Conditional Certification Under the FLSA
By Noel P. Tripp on
Posted in Class Actions
FLSA lawsuits seeking unpaid minimum or overtime wages typically are brought as “collective actions,” pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). State law claims typically are brought – often in the same lawsuit – as class actions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Despite the large number of wage and hour class and collective actions brought in…