353 F. Supp. 3d 43
D.D.C.2018Background
- Plaintiffs Roy and Trumbull (Massachusetts residents) sued FedEx Ground under the FLSA for unpaid overtime, seeking conditional certification of a nationwide opt‑in collective action.
- FedEx Ground uses an ISP (independent service provider) model: ISPs hire and pay delivery drivers; FedEx controls terminal operations, uniforms, scanners, manifests, and delivery assignments.
- Plaintiffs allege drivers (vehicles <10,001 lbs) hired/paid by ISPs regularly worked >40 hours/week and were not paid overtime.
- FedEx moved to dismiss a non‑Massachusetts named plaintiff for lack of personal jurisdiction; the court previously dismissed that plaintiff.
- In the present motion, FedEx opposes nationwide notice on two grounds: lack of personal jurisdiction over out‑of‑state opt‑ins (relying on Bristol‑Myers) and that only drivers employed by the same ISP are similarly situated.
- The court limited the collective to drivers who delivered FedEx Ground packages in Massachusetts and granted conditional certification for that group, subject to revised notice language and procedure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court may issue nationwide FLSA notice (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 jurisdiction | Bristol‑Myers bars exercising specific jurisdiction over nonforum opt‑ins because their claims lack a connection to the forum | Denied for out‑of‑state drivers: Bristol‑Myers principles applied; court lacks specific jurisdiction over claims of drivers who did not work in Massachusetts |
| Whether Massachusetts drivers paid by different ISPs are "similarly situated" for §216(b) notice | Plaintiffs showed a common FedEx model and consistent working conditions across ISPs at Massachusetts terminals | FedEx argues ISPs are the employers, pay structures vary, and joint‑employer/merits issues are individualized | Granted for Massachusetts drivers: plaintiffs met the lenient stage‑one showing that drivers were similarly situated |
| Whether conditional certification requires identification of interested opt‑ins before notice | Not required; conditional certification aims to facilitate discovery and notice to identify opt‑ins | FedEx urged requirement of identified interested opt‑ins to avoid speculative classes | Court declined to require identified opt‑ins, finding practical and remedial reasons to permit notice without pre‑identification |
| Content and scope of notice (including warnings about costs, neutrality, counsel choice) | Proposed notice adequate but should clarify geographic limitation and advise potential opt‑ins they may hire counsel individually | Asked to add warnings about possible cost liability, court neutrality, and counsel choice; objected to use of FedEx channels | Court limited notice to Massachusetts drivers, rejected cost‑liability language, accepted neutrality language as unnecessary, and required a statement that potential opt‑ins may hire their own counsel; ordered parties to meet on final notice and methods |
Key Cases Cited
- Bristol‑Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (U.S. 2017) (relatedness requirement for specific jurisdiction; court cannot exercise specific jurisdiction over nonforum plaintiffs lacking connection to forum)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (U.S. 2014) (limits of general jurisdiction)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (U.S. 2014) (specific jurisdiction focuses on relationship among defendant, forum, and litigation)
- Hoffmann‑La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1989) (district courts have discretion to facilitate notice in collective actions under §216(b))
- Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66 (U.S. 2013) (distinguishing Rule 23 class actions from FLSA §216(b) collectives)
- Baystate Alternative Staffing, Inc. v. Herman, 163 F.3d 668 (1st Cir. 1998) (FLSA definitions of employer/employee construed broadly; multiple employers/joint employer concept)