3Laura Symczyk sought relief under the Fair LaborStandards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 207 and 216(b), onbehalf of herself and all others similarly situated. The DistrictCourt for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed
Symczyk‟s complaint for lack of su
bject matter jurisdictionafter defendants Genesis HealthCare Corporation andElderCare Resources Corporation extended an offer of judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 in full satisfaction of heralleged damages, fees, and costs. At issue in this case iswhether a collective action brought under § 216(b) of theFLSA becomes moot when
, prior to moving for “conditional
nd prior to any other plaintiff opting in to thesuit, the putative representative receives a Rule 68 offer. Wewill reverse and remand.I.From April 2007 through December 2007, Symczyk was employed by defendants as a Registered Nurse atPennypack Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. OnDecember 4, 2009, Symczyk initiated a collective actionunder 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) on behalf of herself and allsimilarly situated individuals, alleging defendants violated theFLSA when they implemented a policy subjecting the pay of certain employees to an automatic meal break deductionwhether or not they performed compensable work duringtheir breaks.
On February 18, 2010, defendants filed an
Symczyk‟s amended complaint identified those “similarlysituated” as
All persons employed within the three yearspreceding the filing of this action by Defendants. . . , whose pay was subject to an automatic 30minute meal period deduction even when they