In re JPMorgan Chase & Co.
916 F.3d 494
| 5th Cir. | 2019Background
- Plaintiff Rivenbark sued JPMorgan Chase under the FLSA claiming unpaid "off-the-clock" work at call centers and sought conditional collective certification for ~42,000 current/former employees.
- Chase asserted ~35,000 putative collective members signed arbitration agreements waiving collective/class proceedings and objected to sending notice to those employees.
- The district court conditionally certified the collective and ordered notice to all 42,000 employees and production of their contact information.
- Chase sought interlocutory review and an emergency stay, was denied, and petitioned this court for mandamus to prohibit notice to employees bound by arbitration agreements.
- The Fifth Circuit found mandamus appropriate to consider the legal question and stayed the district order for 30 days, but denied the writ because Chase failed to show a clear and indisputable right to mandamus relief.
- The Fifth Circuit held as a matter of law (binding in the circuit) that district courts may not send notice to employees who are ineligible to opt in due to valid arbitration agreements unless the record shows the agreement does not bar collective participation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district courts may send Hoffmann-La Roche notice to employees who signed arbitration agreements waiving collective actions | All putative collective members (including arbitration signees) have a right to notice of potential FLSA claims | Courts should not notify employees who are ineligible to opt in because valid arbitration agreements bar collective participation | District courts may not send notice to employees with valid arbitration agreements unless the record shows the agreement permits participation; sending notice to those who cannot join is improper |
| Who bears the burden to establish an arbitration agreement at conditional-certification stage | Plaintiffs: do not contest existence broadly; notice should not be curtailed absent individual arbitration motions | Chase: must show which employees are bound by valid arbitration agreements before notice is sent | Employer seeking to avoid inclusion must show by a preponderance that a given employee has a valid arbitration agreement; courts may take limited additional evidence at conditional-certification stage |
| Whether a district court’s comments suggesting belief in employer liability violate Hoffmann-La Roche neutrality constraints | Plaintiffs: court’s facilitation and comments appropriate to ensure employees learn of claims | Chase: such statements create appearance of judicial endorsement of merits and violate Hoffmann-La Roche | Court admonished: judges must avoid statements that suggest endorsement of the merits; the district court crossed that line here |
| Whether mandamus relief was warranted to vacate the district court’s notice order | Plaintiffs: district courts have discretion and other courts have reached similar results; not an extraordinary case for mandamus | Chase: ordinary appeal is inadequate; issue is recurring and mandates immediate correction | Mandamus denied because district court’s error was not "clear and indisputable"; but appellate court issued precedent clarifying law and extended a temporary stay for reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (Sup. Ct.) (district courts may facilitate notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs but must avoid appearance of endorsing merits)
- Sandoz v. Cingular Wireless LLC, 553 F.3d 913 (5th Cir.) (opt-in requirement and procedure for FLSA collectivization)
- In re Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc., 870 F.3d 345 (5th Cir.) (mandamus standards and prior application in similar context)
- Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367 (Sup. Ct.) (three-part mandamus test)
- Occidental Petroleum Corp. v. 21st Century Co., 217 F.3d 293 (5th Cir.) (mandamus requires clear and indisputable right)
- Edwards v. DoorDash, Inc., 888 F.3d 738 (5th Cir.) (arbitrability of named plaintiffs must be resolved pre-certification)
- Mooney v. Aramco Servs. Co., 54 F.3d 1207 (5th Cir.) (describing Lusardi two-stage conditional-certification framework)
- Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (Sup. Ct.) (requires enforcement of arbitration agreements that waive collective-action procedures)