United States: U.S. Supreme Court Affirms District Court Decision Under FLSA Holding When Rule 68 Offer Of Judgment Includes Complete Relief

A sharply divided United States Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 to affirm a Federal District Court's ruling that there was no "case or controversy" to provide federal jurisdiction when a class action Plaintiff employee rejected an offer of judgment that would have fully compensated her individual claim. In Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyh, ___ U.S. ___, 2013 WL 1567370 (Apr. 16, 2013), the Supreme Court held that a rejected Rule 68 offer of judgment mooted the employee's individual claim and, therefore, precluded her from continuing as a class representative. However, because of the unique procedural posture of the case, and the fact that the case was a class action under FLSA, it is unclear if this "pick-off" strategy will be successful in future cases under Rule 23, or even FLSA cases.

The Plaintiff, Symczyh, filed a class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") alleging that her employer enforced a uniform policy of deducting 30 minutes of "break time" for each shift, even if employees performed work during these break periods. The employer served an offer of judgment for $7,500, in addition to "reasonable attorneys fees and costs and expenses as the court may determine" on the class representative. The Rule 68 offer was apparently structured in such a manner so that it included the maximum recovery that the Plaintiff could be awarded.

Significantly, the District Court had not conditionally certified a class under the FLSA collective action provision, not Rule 23, the Federal class action rule. The majority held that Section 216(b) of the FLSA "simply authorized court approval of written notice to employees who most affirmatively file a written opt-in consent." The majority emphasized that a provisional certification did not "create a class action or independent status." 

The District Court conducted a hearing and determined that it was undisputed that no other employee opted in, and that $7,500 and an offer to pay fees and costs fully satisfied her claim. Despite the fact that she had allowed the offer to lapse without acceptance, the District Court held it had no jurisdiction since there was no "case or controversy." The employee had unsuccessfully argued that the employer's tactic was an unreasonable "pick-off" offer, attempting to preclude the collective action under the FLSA by picking off the only plaintiff with a settlement offer which was intended to preclude class relief.

On appeal, the Third Circuit agreed that the employer's offer of judgment fully satisfied the Plaintiff's individual claim and no other employee had opted in to the proposed class. Nevertheless, the Third Circuit reversed the District Court's reasoning that the Rule 68 pick-off strategy would violate the policy of Section 216 of the FLSA for "collective action." The Third Circuit remanded the case to the District Court to allow the respondent to seek conditional certification, which if successful, would allow a new employee to press the collection claim and the new action would relate back to the initial date that Symczyk filed her complaint, preserving a putative class member's claim from a statute of limitations defense, and ensures that a claim would reach the class certification.

The employer petitioned for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court based on a significant split among the courts of appeal on the effects of a Rule 68 offer and federal court jurisdiction if the offer of judgment provided complete relief to the named plaintiff. The employee did not seek review of the decision that her individual claim, as opposed to her claim as a representative party, was moot. The Supreme Court, on a 5 to 4 vote, reversed the Third Circuit and held that under the circumstances of this case, the Rule 68 offer deprived the District Court of jurisdiction because the employee failed to preserve her argument that the Rule 68 offer that she did not accept, mooted her individual claim. The decision was based on extraordinarily narrow grounds.

Jutice Thomas wrote for the five justice majority decision and focused on the "case or controversy" constitutional predicate for federal jurisdiction. The majority reasoned that the employee, even though she rejected the offer, was no longer involved in a dispute which would have direct consequences on her status. The majority concluded that the employee had failed to preserve that issue by filing a cross-petition for certiorari, and in any event, the employee conceded the point before the District Court and in her briefing to the Court of Appeal, and did not raise the issue in her brief in opposition to the petition for writ of certiorari

After concluding that her individual claim was not properly preserved, the majority addressed the issue of whether the employee's representative claim was moot. The majority distinguished the Rule 23 cases that the employee relied upon as "fundamentally" different from collective actions under FLSA, since a "provisional certification" did not create the type of protectable interest for putative class member's interest that a Rule 23 certification created. Although not discussed by the Court, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) requires court approval for any settlement of a putative class action after certification and implicitly requires no court approval of settlement before certification. Rule 23(g) and (h) impose a duty of fairness on class counsel only at the time when he or she is appointed. Because this principle does not generally apply to pre-certification settlements, it is possible that defendants, prior to certification, will routinely be able to moot-out federal cases seeking monetary claims by using Rule 68 offers of judgment in several of the federal circuits. The majority distinguished other Rule 23 cases because a class had been improperly denied class certification, which justified the application of the relation-back principle. But the primary basis was "conditional certification under the FLSA," even if granted, it would simply authorize contact with potential plaintiffs and give employees the opportunity to opt-in. Such a limited determination did not create rights among putative "collective action" class members. This language also suggests that pre-certification Rule 23 cases would also be subject to Rule 68 offers that would deprive a court of federal jurisdiction, at least when claims are exclusively monetary.

The Court also distinguished class action mootness cases where the class was "inherently transitory." Those cases were distinguishable because any putative representative would not be able to prosecute a claim because circumstances would inherently remove her from the class. In such cases, the challenged conduct would never be reviewable because no employee would retain its standing. The majority also found it significant that the employee did not seek any forward looking relief such as an injunction.

The final policy driven argument by the employee, was that a "pick-off" strategy would frustrate the entire policy for "collection action" under the FLSA. The majority limited its reasoning to distinguishing the cases that the employee relied upon and the distinctions between Rule 23 class certification and conditional certification under the FLSA. The primary policy justification was the constitutional requirement of a "case or controversy."

It is perhaps more important what the Supreme Court did not decide. First, it never addressed the most fundamental issue – whether a Rule 68 offer that was not accepted still could moot a private plaintiff's individual claim. Because the employee waived that argument, the Court only had to determine that the employee had no personal interest in putative unnamed claimants or other interest that would preserve her suit from mootness.

Justice Kagan's dissent, joined by three other justices, focused on the limited effect of the majority holding which did not resolve the issue of whether an unaccepted offer of judgment can be a basis to moot a claim. Justice Kagan wrote that "this view is wrong, wrong, and wrong again." Her rationale was "when a Plaintiff rejects an offer, however good the terms –her interest in the lawsuit remains just what it is before." The dissent focused on whether an unaccepted offer can moot a case. The dissent rejected this argument on policy grounds, basic contract law, and the text of Rule 68 that allows a judgment to be entered only if the plaintiff accepts.

It is hard to discern a clear message from this highly contentious and qualified opinion, especially as it applies to Rule 23 class actions. Certainly, it is hard to justify an individual claim, when a defendant has offered all or more than a plaintiff could recover in its best case. Allowing an individual claim to proceed under those circumstances makes transparent that class counsel, not the client, is the real party of interest. The majority opinion certainly encourages defense counsel to make early pre-certification offers of judgment, especially in cases that have fixed or limited damages and do not seek injunctive or possibly declaratory relief.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions