42 F.4th 366
3rd Cir.2022Background
- Christa Fischer, a Pennsylvania FedEx security specialist, sued FedEx under the FLSA § 216(b) claiming misclassification and unpaid overtime and sought to proceed as a nationwide collective.
- Two out-of-state employees (Andre Saunders, Maryland; Andrew Rakowsky, New York) opted in but never worked or suffered injury in Pennsylvania.
- The District Court conditionally certified notice but limited the collective to Pennsylvania security specialists, concluding it lacked specific personal jurisdiction over FedEx for out-of-state opt-ins under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A) and Bristol-Myers.
- FedEx is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Tennessee, so Pennsylvania is not a forum of general jurisdiction for FedEx.
- The Third Circuit granted interlocutory review to decide whether, when a federal court relies on Rule 4(k)(1)(A), each FLSA opt-in must independently satisfy specific personal jurisdiction.
- The Third Circuit affirmed: where Rule 4(k)(1)(A) supplies jurisdiction, each opt-in must show her claims arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum; § 216(b) does not supply nationwide service of process, and Rule 5 notices do not substitute for Rule 4 jurisdictional requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether opt-in plaintiffs in an FLSA collective must each establish specific personal jurisdiction in federal court when the court lacks general jurisdiction | Opt-ins need not separately satisfy personal jurisdiction; FLSA collective actions are akin to class actions so jurisdiction attaches at the suit level (via named plaintiff) | Each opt-in is a party asserting an individual claim; absent §216(b) authorization for nationwide service, Rule 4(k)(1)(A) governs and requires a jurisdictional link for each claimant | Held: Each opt-in must show her claim arises out of or relates to the defendant’s contacts with the forum (specific jurisdiction) when jurisdiction is based on Rule 4(k)(1)(A) |
| Whether an FLSA collective is equivalent to a Rule 23 class for jurisdictional purposes | FLSA collectives should be treated like class actions; personal-jurisdiction analysis can focus on the named plaintiff/class | FLSA §216(b) differs materially from Rule 23; opt-ins are party plaintiffs with full party status, and collectives lack Rule 23 procedural protections and representative status | Held: FLSA collective actions are not Rule 23 classes; they operate as individual in personam suits for jurisdictional purposes |
| Whether § 216(b) of the FLSA authorizes nationwide service of process (Rule 4(k)(1)(C)) allowing opt-ins to establish Fifth Amendment–level jurisdiction | The statute’s collective mechanism creates a statutory relationship enabling nationwide joinder and thus broader federal jurisdiction | §216(b) contains no service-of-process or nationwide-jurisdiction grant; Congress did not authorize nationwide service in §216(b) | Held: §216(b) does not authorize nationwide service or independent federal personal jurisdiction over opt-ins; Rule 4(k)(1)(C) not satisfied |
| Whether serving opt-in consents or pleadings under Rule 5 can substitute for Rule 4 service to confer personal jurisdiction | Historical practice of serving opt-in notices under Rule 5 suggests no new Rule 4 summons is required; Rule 5 service suffices | Rule 5 does not authorize exercise of personal jurisdiction; Omni Capital requires Rule 4 statutory authorization to establish jurisdiction | Held: Rule 5 service does not independently confer personal jurisdiction where Rule 4(k) would not reach the claims; Rule 4 governs jurisdictional foundation |
Key Cases Cited
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (specific jurisdiction requires claims to arise out of or relate to defendant's contacts with the forum)
- Omni Capital Int’l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., Ltd., 484 U.S. 97 (1987) (service of process under Rule 4 is required before federal courts may assert personal jurisdiction)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (general jurisdiction for corporations limited to forums where they are at home)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (distinction between general and specific jurisdiction)
- Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66 (2013) (distinguishing collective actions from Rule 23 class actions)
- Canaday v. Anthem Cos., Inc., 9 F.4th 392 (6th Cir. 2021) (holding opt-ins must satisfy forum-specific contacts when jurisdiction rests on state-law-based service)
- Waters v. Day & Zimmermann NPS, Inc., 23 F.4th 84 (1st Cir. 2022) (contrasting view: opt-ins need only satisfy nationwide contacts under certain federal-authority theories)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (discussing class action structure and representative nature)