Adedje v. Westat, Inc.
75 A.3d 401
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2013Background
- Judith Adedje worked as a Westat field interviewer from April 2003 to May 2007 and claims unpaid overtime under Maryland law.
- Adedje opted in to a federal FLSA collective action (Syrja) on September 15, 2009; the district court denied conditional certification on November 2, 2010.
- After the certification denial, Adedje and others filed a new federal suit on December 2, 2010; that suit was later dismissed as to Adedje with leave to amend, and the court declined to resolve limitations at that time.
- Adedje then filed an individual complaint in Maryland circuit court on September 30, 2011 asserting Maryland Wage and Hour Law and Wage Payment & Collection Law claims.
- Westat moved to dismiss as time-barred; the circuit court held the Wage & Hour claim was not tolled by the federal proceedings because Adedje had only opted into the FLSA collective action (not the state-law claim) and denied cross-jurisdictional class-action tolling; the Wage Payment & Collection Law claim was also time-barred after applying 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d).
- The Maryland appellate court affirmed, answering the principal question: cross-jurisdictional class-action tolling is not recognized here and Adedje’s state-law overtime claim was barred by the statute of limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Adedje’s Maryland overtime claim is tolled by her participation in the federal FLSA collective action (cross-jurisdictional class-action tolling) | Adedje: opting in to Syrja tolled limitations during the federal proceedings and again under § 1367(d) after the subsequent federal Adedje suit | Westat: § 1367(d) is the exclusive tolling mechanism; class-action tolling does not extend across jurisdictions or to FLSA opt-in collective actions | Court: No cross-jurisdictional class-action tolling; Adedje’s state-law overtime claim is time-barred (only § 1367(d) applied to the later federal Adedje suit) |
Key Cases Cited
- Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Christensen, 394 Md. 227 (Md. 2006) (Maryland recognizes class-action tolling under conditions derived from American Pipe)
- American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (U.S. 1974) (commencement of a class action tolls the statute of limitations for putative class members)
- Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345 (U.S. 1983) (American Pipe tolling applies to members who later file individual federal suits)
- Portwood v. Ford Motor Co., 183 Ill.2d 459 (Ill. 1998) (refusal to adopt cross-jurisdictional class-action tolling to avoid inviting stale claims into state courts)
- Thelen v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 111 F. Supp. 2d 688 (D. Md. 2000) (federal court predicting Maryland would not adopt broad cross-jurisdictional tolling)