Ervin v. OS Restaurant Services, Inc.
632 F.3d 971
7th Cir.2011Background
- Former Outback employees sue for FLSA minimum wage and overtime violations and related Illinois wage claims at Calumet City, including IMWL and IWPCA theories.
- Plaintiffs seek conditional certification under FLSA §216(b) and Rule 23(b)(3) class treatment for state-law claims.
- District court found no superiority under Rule 23(b)(3) due to alleged incompatibility with opt-in FLSA action and denied class certification.
- Court allowed FLSA collective action to proceed but denied state-law class certification; plaintiffs appealed under Rule 23(f).
- Panel holds combined FLSA and Rule 23(b)(3) actions can coexist; remands for reconsideration of class certification consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FLSA collective action and Rule 23(b)(3) class can coexist | Ervin argues combined actions are compatible | Outback argues incompatibility due to opt-in vs opt-out | Yes, they can coexist |
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying class certification | Rule 23(b)(3) classes should be certified | Opt-in nature precludes superiority | Abuse of discretion; reversed and remanded |
| Role of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1367 in combined actions | 1367(a) supports supplemental state-law claims | No need to exercise jurisdiction over mixed actions | 1367(a) satisfied; not proper to decline absent 1367(c) factors otherwise |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (Supreme Court 1989) (FLSA history and opt-in/representative action background)
- Lindsay v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 448 F.3d 416 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (supplemental jurisdiction and related state claims; not precluded by FLSA)
- Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., 623 F.3d 743 (9th Cir. 2010) (district court may certify combined class with FLSA; exercise of supplemental jurisdiction)
- De Asencio v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 342 F.3d 301 (3d Cir. 2003) (discussion of when supplemental jurisdiction is inappropriate due to state-law issues)