Courtney Sandoz v. Cingular Wireless, L.L.C
675 F. App'x 448
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Sandoz, a former part-time Cingular employee, sued under the FLSA alleging that Cingular’s payroll practice (paying 19 “regular” hours and treating additional hours as delayed “exception time”) produced effective hourly wages below the statutory minimum for some weeks.
- Cingular removed the case and served a Rule 68 offer of judgment to Sandoz; she rejected it and the defendant moved to dismiss as moot. The Fifth Circuit held a timely certification motion could relate back to the complaint and prevent mooting, and remanded to decide timeliness and merits of certification.
- On remand the district court provisionally certified the collective action; four former employees opted in but their claims were subject to a three-year statute of limitations.
- The district court later decertified the collective action, finding the Opt-In Plaintiffs’ claims time-barred because equitable tolling or estoppel did not apply, and dismissed their claims; it then dismissed Sandoz’s individual claim as moot after decertification.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed the decertification for abuse of discretion, rejected Sandoz’s equitable tolling and estoppel arguments (Opt-Ins had enough payroll information to discover the alleged underpayment), affirmed decertification, but—relying on Campbell–Ewald—reversed dismissal of Sandoz’s individual claim because a rejected Rule 68 offer does not moot a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether equitable tolling applies to Opt-In Plaintiffs so their claims are timely | Sandoz: Employees lacked sufficient notice from Cingular to discover violations, so diligence requirement excused | Cingular: Pay stubs/timesheets provided enough information; Opt-Ins failed to exercise minimal diligence | Court: No equitable tolling; Opt-Ins had means to discover claims and failed reasonable diligence |
| Whether equitable estoppel prevents Cingular from asserting statute-of-limitations defense | Sandoz: Cingular’s pay practices and disclosures concealed violations and induced delay | Cingular: Provided the same information Sandoz had; did not mislead so as to induce inaction | Court: No equitable estoppel; Opt-Ins were not induced to refrain from filing |
| Whether time-limit defenses preclude collective certification | Sandoz: Tolling/estoppel would make Opt-Ins similarly situated to Sandoz | Cingular: Opt-Ins’ claims are time-barred so not similarly situated | Court: Decertification appropriate because equitable relief not established; Opt-Ins not similarly situated |
| Whether Sandoz’s individual claim was moot after decertification given Cingular’s rejected Rule 68 offer | Sandoz: Rejected offer does not moot her claim after Campbell–Ewald | Cingular: Offer of judgment rendered Sandoz’s claim moot once she represented only herself | Court: Reversed dismissal; Campbell–Ewald precludes a rejected Rule 68 offer from mooting the claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell–Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016) (a rejected Rule 68 offer does not moot a plaintiff’s case)
- Menominee Indian Tribe of Wis. v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 750 (2016) (equitable tolling requires diligence and an extraordinary external obstacle)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (standard for diligence in equitable tolling)
- Phillips v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., 658 F.3d 452 (5th Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling is a narrow exception applied sparingly)
- Mooney v. Aramco Servs. Co., 54 F.3d 1207 (5th Cir. 1995) (standard of review for decertification of collective actions)