Fisher v. Rite Aid Corp., 764 F. Supp. 2d 700

Fisher alleges misclassification of Assistant Store Managers under the Maryland Wage and Hour Law and seeks class relief.
Action filed Sept. 3, 2010 in the MD federal court asserting MWHL claims and seeking class certification for 145 Rite Aid Maryland stores per Rite Aid 10-K.
Fisher previously joined the Craig v. Rite Aid FLSA action and then filed a separate Maryland action asserting the same MWHL claims.
MD court Judge Bennet dismissed Fisher's MWPCL claim with prejudice and the MWHL claim without prejudice under the first-filed rule on June 8, 2010.
Fisher re-filed his MWHL claim in this district; Defendants moved to dismiss arguing inherent incompatibility with the FLSA action and preemption concerns.
The district court granted the motion, dismissing the complaint without prejudice due to inherent incompatibility between the FLSA opt-in scheme and state wage-hour claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether inherent incompatibility bars the MWHL claim	Fisher argues inherent incompatibility should not extend to a separately filed action	Inherent incompatibility applies to separate actions as well to prevent circumvention of FLSA	Inherently incompatible extension to separate actions warranted
Whether MWHL claims are preempted by the FLSA or by the Rules Enabling Act	MWHL claims are not preempted and do not abridge FLSA rights	Preemption and procedural mechanisms render the action incompatible with FLSA	Preemption and related issues not reached; relied on inherent incompatibility to dispose

Hoffmann-La Roche v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (Supreme Court 1989) (opt-in requirement preserves individual rights and controls litigation volume)
Otto v. Pocono Health Sys., 457 F. Supp. 2d 522 (M.D. Pa. 2006) (extending inherent incompatibility to separatel y filed FLSA and state claims)
Lehman v. Legg Mason, Inc., 532 F. Supp. 2d 726 (M.D. Pa. 2007) (recognition of inherent incompatibility doctrine in dual-filed actions)