Knepper v. Rite Aid Corp.
764 F. Supp. 2d 707
M.D. Penn.2011Background
- Vasvari was Rite Aid Assistant Manager; employed Nov 2, 1998 to Jun 12, 2009, terminated during restructuring.
- He alleged Ohio MFWSA violations, including overtime pay claims, and sought class certification under Rule 23.
- Knepper substituted for Vasvari as plaintiff after Vasvari’s death, with no change to underlying claims.
- Action originated in Northern District of Ohio and was transferred to this court; related FLSA action Craig v. Rite Aid exists.
- Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings; court previously denied some aspects and granted others, including recordkeeping claims.
- Court sua sponte or by motion addressed whether state-law MFWSA claims are inherently incompatible with FLSA § 216(b) action and should be dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are FLSA opt-in and Rule 23 state-law claims inherently incompatible? | Vasvari argues the actions can coexist; extension to separate actions not warranted. | Inherent incompatibility applies to dual-filed actions and separate actions to avoid opt-in effects. | Yes; extension to separately filed actions warranted; action dismissed without prejudice. |
| Are Ohio MFWSA claims preempted or repugnant to FLSA rights? | MFWSA simply mirrors FLSA overtime rights and complements federal scheme. | State claims are preempted or undermine FLSA remedies and procedures. | Not preempted by FLSA; state law mirrors FLSA provisions and is permissible. |
| Does refinement of the class action framework (CAFA/Rule 23) affect the viability of MFWSA claims here? | Similar overtime claims should be efficiently managed in a single proceeding. | Rule 23 class action cannot coexist with FLSA opt-in in this context and would undermine Congress's intent. | Incompatibility doctrine extends to separately filed actions; compelled dismissal without prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffmann-La Roche v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989) (FLSA opt-in, Portal-to-Portal rationale for limiting representative actions)
- Otto v. Pocono Health Sys., 457 F. Supp. 2d 522 (M.D. Pa. 2006) (Extends inherent incompatibility to séparately filed actions)
- Lehman v. Legg Mason, Inc., 532 F. Supp. 2d 726 (M.D. Pa. 2007) (Discusses incompatibility doctrine and related rationale)
- De Asencio v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 342 F.3d 301 (3d Cir. 2003) (Oversees balance of state-law overtime claims with FLSA actions)
- Ervin v. OS Rest. Serv., Inc., 632 F.3d 971 (7th Cir. 2011) (Affirms some incompatibility considerations in hybrid actions)
- McClain v. Leona's Pizzeria, Inc., 222 F.R.D. 574 (N.D. Ill. 2004) (Class-action interplay with federal wage claims)