What The Supreme Court’s Mootness Holding And Class/Collective Action Distinctions In Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk Mean For New York Employers And Arbitration

p>In Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk (11-1059 here), plaintiff filed a FLSA collective action on behalf of herself and other persons similarly situated claiming that 30 minutes were improperly deducted for meal breaks each day when employees actually worked. Genesis answered the complaint and immediately served an offer of judgment ($7,500 for unpaid wages, plus "such reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses ... as the Court may determine") under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 before anyone else opted-in to the suit. The offer was not accepted within 10 days thus was deemed withdrawn. Genesis filed a motion to dismiss asserting the offer provided Symczyk complete relief on her individual damages claim. The District Court agreed and held that the unaccepted offer of judgment mooted her entire suit. The Third Circuit reversed in part - holding that although the offer fully satisfied her individual claim ("whether or not such an offer is accepted, it generally moots a plaintiff 's claim" in the Third Circuit), the Court held that her collective action was not moot.

After assuming, without deciding, that Symczyk's individual claim was moot (resulting in a blistering dissent), yesterday the Supreme Court (5-4) held "... that respondent has no personal interest in representing putative, unnamed claimants, nor any other continuing interest that would preserve her suit from mootness." In coming to this conclusion, the Supreme Court stated:

"While the Courts of Appeals disagree whether an unaccepted offer that fully satisfies a plaintiff's claim is sufficient to render the claim moot, we do not reach this question, or resolve the...