Supreme Court Rules FLSA Collective Action Is Moot When The Individual Plaintiff's Claims Are Resolved Before Certification

by Perkins Coie

On April 16, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded, in a 5-4 decision, that when the individual plaintiff in a "collective action" under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) resolves her own claims before certification, the case is moot and must be dismissed.  Genesis Healthcare Corp v. Symczyk, No. 11-1059 (U.S. 2013).


Symczyk sued Genesis, claiming that the company violated the FLSA by not paying for meal periods even when she worked during those periods.  In addition to suing for herself, she sought a collective action on behalf of other similarly situated employees.  The collective action process under the FLSA is different than the class action process under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (Rule 23).  In a typical Rule 23 class action, if the trial court determines that a class action is appropriate, all class members are automatically included in the lawsuit unless they affirmatively "opt out" of it.  Under the FLSA, however, if the trial court determines that a collective action is appropriate, notice is given to all potential plaintiffs and they must affirmatively "opt in" to join the lawsuit.  If they do not, they are not parties to the collective action. 

In Symczyk's case, before the trial court determined whether a collective action was appropriate, and before any other employee joined the lawsuit, Genesis gave her an offer of judgment under Rule 68 that would have paid her everything she claimed to be owed, along with her reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.  She did not accept that offer and, instead, sought to continue the lawsuit.  However, under the law of the Third Circuit, where the case arose, an unaccepted offer of judgment in the full amount that is owed resolves a plaintiff's individual claims.  Based on that principle, Genesis argued that the remaining collective action was moot and asked the trial court to dismiss it.  The trial court agreed and dismissed the entire lawsuit, without entering a judgment in favor of Symczyk for the amount of the offer.

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed, reasoning that, even though Symczyk's own claim was resolved by the unaccepted offer of judgment, she had an interest in pursuing the collective action on behalf of the other employees and that interest was enough to keep the case alive.  The Supreme Court agreed to review the matter.

In the Supreme Court

In an opinion by Justice Thomas for a five-member majority, the Supreme Court concluded that because Symczyk's individual claim was resolved before the trial court certified the proceeding as a collective action, the case became moot and was properly dismissed.  The Court did not, however, rule on the underlying question of whether the Third Circuit precedent is correct that an unaccepted offer of judgment resolves a plaintiff's individual claims.  Justice Thomas noted that there is a split among the circuits on that question, but he stated that it was not necessary to resolve that split because Symczyk had waived the issue below and the issue had not been properly raised for review.

Justice Kagan, on behalf of the four justices in the minority, filed a strongly worded dissent, criticizing the majority for not addressing what she regarded to be the central question:  whether an offer of judgment that would provide complete relief to the plaintiff resolves the plaintiff's claims even though it is unaccepted.  Justice Kagan went on to say that she believes that the correct answer to that question is an emphatic "no."  Therefore, in Justice Kagan's view, the majority decision was based on a fallacy and has little relevance to FLSA collective actions.

Implications for the Future

The Genesis decision leaves many questions unanswered.  The first is the one identified by Justice Kagan:  whether an unaccepted offer of judgment nevertheless disposes of the plaintiff's individual claims if it would grant complete relief.  If that question is ultimately answered in the way the Third Circuit has answered it, that decision would have very wide-reaching ramifications.  There is no definitive decision on this point in the Ninth Circuit.

Others questions include:

  • In a similar setting under the FLSA, would the same result follow after the trial court certified the collective action?  Justice Thomas' language seems to support an argument that it would.
  • For a Rule 23 class action, would the same reasoning apply before a class is certified?  Justice Thomas did not question earlier decisions holding that after a class is certified under Rule 23, it has a separate legal standing of its own such that resolution of the claims of the individual named plaintiff does not moot the class action.  But what about before certification?  The Ninth Circuit has squarely held that a defendant cannot moot a putative class action by "picking off" the named plaintiff with an unaccepted precertification settlement offer.  Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2011) (unaccepted Rule 68 offer does not moot a class action).  However, the Ninth Circuit's rationale may have been undercut by Justice Thomas' reasoning.

At the very least, the fact that an FLSA collective action can be mooted by resolving the individual plaintiff's claims may provide a useful defense strategy in appropriate cases.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Perkins Coie | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Perkins Coie

Perkins Coie on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.