In a recent blog post, we analyzed the landmark decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Harrington v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., which clarified the limits of personal jurisdiction in Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective actions.
Specifically, the Ninth Circuit concluded in Harrington that the district court erred in assuming that a single plaintiff's participation with a claim arising out of an employer's business in Arizona is sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over the employer for all claims in the collective action. A new order from the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona illustrates how courts are applying Harrington in practice.
In Vanorden v. ECP Optometry Services LLC, the District of Arizona found it lacked personal jurisdiction over claims brought by out-of-state opt-in plaintiffs in a nationwide FLSA class action. Rather than dismissing those claims, the court severed the non-Arizona plaintiffs' claims and transferred them to a district where jurisdiction was proper (here, the Eastern District of Missouri).
From a practical standpoint, this approach ensures that out-of-state collective members are not left without a forum—but it also means employers may face parallel FLSA actions in multiple jurisdictions.
The Harrington decision is already reshaping FLSA litigation strategy. Courts are actively scrutinizing personal jurisdiction over opt-in plaintiffs and are willing to sever and transfer claims rather than dismiss them outright. Employers should anticipate the possibility of defending FLSA claims in multiple venues and should review their litigation strategies accordingly with experienced counsel.
For more details on Harrington and its implications, see our full analysis.
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.
