What is required to obtain class treatment in a Title VII discrimination case? A recent decision has laid out a structure for analyzing commonality in putative class actions involving manager discretion over pay and promotions.
On September 6, 2018, the 8th Circuit held that an individual plaintiff did not have constitutional standing to sue in federal court under the FCRA for an alleged violation of the statute's authorization and disclosure requirement.
In a case of first impression, the 11th Circuit concluded that filing a written consent – even in a matter that is never certified as a collective action – is sufficient to bestow “party plaintiff” status to a putative opt-in plaintiff.
The FCRA is not a classic employment law, but regulates the procurement and use of background checks by employers. The plaintiffs’ bar has been flooding the courts with class action lawsuits asserting technical violations of the FCRA's requirements.
On June 7, 2017, a plaintiff brought a putative class and collective action for alleged wage and hour law violations. Some claims are based on a DOL overtime rule that was enjoined and never took effect.
As a result of the Supreme Court’s recent decision to address whether class and collective action waivers are lawful in an arbitration agreement, many employers have asked whether similar pending cases will be held in abeyance.