Arvion Taylor v. Pilot Corp.
697 F. App'x 854
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Pilot operates nationwide truck stops; Taylor alleged managers altered time sheets to avoid overtime and brought an FLSA collective action seeking notice to similarly situated employees.
- Taylor moved for court-approved notice (conditional certification) for tens of thousands of employees; the district court conditionally certified the proposed collective.
- Pilot asserted many putative opt-in employees had arbitration agreements and asked the court to dismiss or exclude roughly 50,000 such employees from notice and, alternatively, to stay proceedings under §3 of the FAA.
- The district court declined to remove employees or grant a stay, saying enforceability of arbitration agreements would be addressed after opt-ins were identified.
- Pilot appealed interlocutorily, arguing the FAA provides immediate appealability of the denial to dismiss/exclude and the denial to stay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Taylor) | Defendant's Argument (Pilot) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court of appeals has jurisdiction to review conditional FLSA certification/notice interlocutorily via the FAA | Conditional certification is non-final and not immediately appealable; review must wait for final judgment | FAA §16 permits immediate appeal of orders hostile to arbitration and Pilot’s motion to dismiss/exclude is functionally an arbitration-compelling step, so appellate review is proper now | No. Court lacks jurisdiction to review the conditional-certification/notice decision on interlocutory appeal; §1291 final-judgment rule controls and prior precedents foreclose immediate review |
| Whether the district court erred in denying Pilot’s request to stay the action under §3 of the FAA | Stay was needed to prevent notice and future collective litigation for employees who agreed to arbitrate | Stay was premature because no opt-in plaintiff then had an arbitrable claim; §3 stays apply to suits "brought upon any issue referable to arbitration," which requires an actual party/issue referable to arbitration | Affirmed. Denial of stay was proper because at the time no party had a claim yet "referable to arbitration" and a future, indefinite stay request was premature |
Key Cases Cited
- Comer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 454 F.3d 544 (6th Cir. 2006) (two-stage FLSA collective-notice framework and conditional certification explained)
- Hoffmann–La Roche, Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989) (authorizing court-supervised notice in representative FLSA actions)
- Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523 (2013) (conditional certification does not render opt-in employees parties with independent legal status)
- Turi v. Main St. Adoption Servs., LLP, 633 F.3d 496 (6th Cir. 2011) (limits §16 FAA interlocutory jurisdiction to specific arbitration-related orders and rejects expansion by association)
- Simon v. Pfizer, Inc., 398 F.3d 765 (6th Cir. 2005) (distinguishes motions that functionally compel arbitration as immediately appealable)
- Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, 556 U.S. 624 (2009) (§16(a) must be read to permit immediate appeals from enumerated FAA orders regardless of frivolousness)
- Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79 (2000) (FAA generally permits immediate appeal of orders hostile to arbitration)