Symczyk v. Genesis HealthCare Corp.
656 F.3d 189
| 3rd Cir. | 2011Background
- Symczyk, a registered nurse, filed a 216(b) FLSA collective action on Dec 4, 2009 alleging automatic 30-minute meal-break deductions violated the FLSA at three facilities.
- Defendants offered to satisfy Symczyk's individual claims via Rule 68 judgment for $7,500 plus fees and costs on Feb 18, 2010; Symczyk did not accept.
- District Court conducted scheduling and anticipated conditional certification before any opt-ins joined the case.
- Symczyk’s subsequent dismissal relied on mootness after the Rule 68 offer, asserting no personal stake remained.
- Court previously treated Rule 68 offers as potentially mooting representative actions and contemplated relation back to preserve jurisdiction to certify a collective action.
- This appeal centers on whether the FLSA collective action can be mooted before conditional certification when no others have opted in.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 68 mootness can bar a §216(b) action before certification | Symczyk argues Weiss applies; relation back preserves jurisdiction | Defendants rely on mootness once individual claims are fully satisfied | Yes, relation back can preserve jurisdiction; remand for certification analysis |
| Whether relation back applies to FLSA §216(b) actions like Rule 23 class actions | Weiss-like reasoning extends to §216(b) actions | FLSA named plaintiff lacks class representative status before opt-ins | Yes, relation back applies to preserve collective action viability |
| What standard governs initial 'modest factual showing' of similarly situated at notice stage | A modest showing suffices to conditionally certify | Need stronger showing; risk of overbroad notices | Court adopts modest factual showing standard for initial stage, with post-discovery rigorous analysis later |
| Impact of opt-in timing on mootness and certification | Timely certification could salvage a collective action | Mootness should dispose of action if no opt-ins exist | If timely, relate back can allow certification; otherwise Rule 68 moots the action |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989) (establishes notice and procedural management for §216(b) actions)
- Weiss v. Regal Collections, 385 F.3d 337 (3d Cir. 2004) (relation back principles to preserve class/collective actions)
- Sandoz v. Cingular Wireless LLC, 553 F.3d 913 (5th Cir. 2008) (extends relation back to protect collective actions from Rule 68 moots)
- Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 975 F.2d 964 (3d Cir. 1992) (discusses class certification contexts and mootness tensions)
- Rand v. Monsanto Co., 926 F.2d 596 (7th Cir. 1991) (mootness principles in settlement offers)
- Deposit Guar. Nat’l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326 (1980) (illustrates Rule 68’s settlement dynamics and potential mootness concerns)
- Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393 (1975) (class action certification relation back rationale)
- Morgan v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., 551 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2008) (post-discovery balancing for similarly situated analysis)