353 F.Supp.3d 43
D. Mass.2018Background
- Two Massachusetts delivery drivers (Roy and Trumbull) sued FedEx Ground under the FLSA for unpaid overtime; they were paid by intermediary "ISPs" and worked pickup/delivery routes from a local FedEx terminal.
- Plaintiffs sought conditional certification of a nationwide §216(b) collective to notify "similarly situated" FedEx drivers to opt in.
- FedEx Ground argued (1) the court lacks personal jurisdiction over out-of-state opt-ins and (2) only drivers employed by the same ISP as the named plaintiffs are similarly situated.
- The court analyzed personal jurisdiction under the relatedness test of Bristol-Myers and First Circuit precedent, and limited its jurisdictional reach to claims tied to Massachusetts contacts.
- On the lenient, first-stage collective-certification standard, the court found sufficient evidence that Massachusetts drivers who (a) drove vehicles under 10,001 lbs, (b) were paid by ISPs, and (c) worked >40 hours without overtime, were similarly situated.
- The court granted conditional certification and authorized notice only to drivers employed by ISPs in Massachusetts; it denied notice to out-of-state drivers for lack of specific jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over out-of-state opt‑ins | Bristol‑Myers does not apply to FLSA opt‑in collective actions in federal court; Fifth Amendment governs federal‑question cases | Bristol‑Myers bars exercising specific jurisdiction over non‑resident opt‑ins whose claims lack connection to forum | Court: Bristol‑Myers principles apply; no jurisdiction over claims of drivers who worked outside Massachusetts; nationwide notice denied |
| Applicability of Bristol‑Myers to FLSA collectives | FLSA collectives are different from class/mass‑tort suits; due process analysis should differ | Opt‑in plaintiffs are individual party plaintiffs akin to those in Bristol‑Myers; similarity of claims alone does not supply jurisdiction | Court: Treats opt‑ins like individual plaintiffs for relatedness; Bristol‑Myers limits jurisdiction in §216(b) context here |
| Whether Massachusetts drivers are "similarly situated" for conditional certification | Named plaintiffs offered affidavits, FedEx SEC filing, and operational facts showing uniform ISP model, control over drivers, common pay practices and overtime denial | FedEx says ISP contracts make ISPs the employers; job settings and pay differ across ISPs, so claims are individualized | Court: At stage one, plaintiffs met the lenient showing that Massachusetts ISP‑paid drivers are similarly situated; conditional certification (limited to MA) granted |
| Content and scope of notice | Plaintiffs proposed standard notice and opt‑in form | FedEx sought additional neutral language, warnings about cost liability, counsel choice, and limits on use of FedEx channels | Court: Requires geographic restriction and minor revisions; declines to require cost‑liability language; advises adding that opt‑ins may hire their own counsel; parties to meet and confer on final notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Bristol‑Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (specific‑jurisdiction relatedness requirement; limits exercising jurisdiction over nonresident plaintiffs whose claims lack forum connection)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (general jurisdiction limited to defendant's domicile/places of incorporation/principal place of business)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (specific jurisdiction focuses on defendant's forum contacts and the relationship among defendant, forum, and litigation)
- Hoffmann‑La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989) (district courts have discretion to facilitate notice to potential collective action plaintiffs under §216(b))
- Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66 (2013) (distinguishes Rule 23 class actions from FLSA §216(b) collectives; opt‑in nature emphasized)
- Baystate Alternative Staffing, Inc. v. Herman, 163 F.3d 668 (1st Cir. 1998) (FLSA "employer" interpreted broadly; multiple simultaneous employers and joint‑employer concepts)