March 08, 2023

U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Consider Whether Bristol-Myers Applies to Collective Actions

You've Reached Your
Free Article Limit This Month
Register for free to get unlimited access to all OnPractice content.
Register Now

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to settle the circuit split on whether its 2017 decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal. applies to collective actions brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). In Bristol-Myers, the justices held that a federal court could not exercise specific personal jurisdiction over nonresident plaintiffs' claims against a nonresident company.

The justices denied a petition to review a Third Circuit decision, Fischer v. Federal Express Corp., 42 F.4th 366 (2022). In Fischer, the Third Circuit upheld a district court's refusal to allow out-of-state plaintiffs to join an overtime collective action brought by a former Federal Express security specialist in a federal court in Pennsylvania. The district court, following Bristol-Myers, found that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the claims of former employees who worked for Federal Express outside of Pennsylvania.

The Third Circuit affirmed the judgment on interlocutory appeal. Under Bristol-Myers, "all opt-in plaintiffs must establish specific personal jurisdiction over the defendant with respect to their individual claims," the Third Circuit held, and the opt-in plaintiffs could not do so in this case because they did not work for the defendant in Pennsylvania.

Majority View: Bristol-Myers Applies to Collective Actions

In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 137 S. Ct. 1773, a mass tort action, the Supreme Court limited the scope of federal court jurisdiction over out-of-state claims. Following the decision, federal courts have conflicted on whether the landmark opinion applies to collective actions brought under the FLSA. To date, four circuit courts of appeal have considered the issue.

In Fischer, the Third Circuit joined the Sixth and Eighth Circuits in concluding that Bristol-Myers applies to FLSA collective actions, and therefore, federal courts may not exercise jurisdiction over claims of out-of-state opt-in plaintiffs in putative collective actions, other than in the states in which the employer has its principal place of business or is incorporated.

A divided First Circuit panel, in an outlier decision, has held that out-of-state plaintiffs may join an FLSA collective action without regard to the Bristol-Myers jurisdictional issue.


The Supreme Court's decision to deny review (rejecting its third opportunity to resolve the matter) leaves the circuit split intact. Employers are left to navigate the conflicting circuit court decisions and to await the eventual decisions from the nine other circuit courts that have not weighed in.

The trend favors defendants seeking to rein in nationwide collective actions. In the circuits that apply Bristol-Myers to collective actions, it is harder for opt-in plaintiffs to join FLSA collective actions in federal courts outside of their home states. Employers in these circuits must use this to their advantage and strategically defend collective actions by limiting the plaintiffs that may join the collective.

However, employers will still be on the hook for collective actions brought against them in states in which the employer has its principal place of business, is incorporated, or is subject to general jurisdiction. Given the ongoing circuit split, the trend of plaintiffs filing FLSA collective actions in the state where a company is headquartered is likely to continue.

Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney if you have questions about the impact of Bristol-Myers Squibb on collective and class action litigation.

©2023 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Focused on labor and employment law since 1958, Jackson Lewis P.C.'s 950+ attorneys located in major cities nationwide consistently identify and respond to new ways workplace law intersects business. We help employers develop proactive strategies, strong policies and business-oriented solutions to cultivate high-functioning workforces that are engaged, stable and diverse, and share our clients' goals to emphasize inclusivity and respect for the contribution of every employee. For more information, visit

ALM expressly disclaims any express or implied warranty regarding the OnPractice Content, including any implied warranty that the OnPractice Content is accurate, has been corrected or is otherwise free from errors.

More From Jackson Lewis P.C.

Trade Associations Urge Illinois High Court to Reconsider BIPA Decision in Cothron

By Nadine C. Abrahams Jackson Lewis P.C. March 13 , 2023

The Illinois Supreme Court’s decision that a separate claim under Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) accrues each time an entity scans or transmits an individual’s biometric identifier or biometric information will lead to absurd and unjust results not intended by the Illinois General Assembly, Jackson Lewis argued in a friend-of-the-court brief filed on behalf of a coalition of trade associations representing the interests of thousands of Illinois businesses employing approximately 2.9 million individuals in Illinois.

Seattle Enacts First-of-Its-Kind Law Protecting Individuals Against Discrimination Based on Caste

By Samia M. Kirmani Jackson Lewis P.C. March 10 , 2023

The Seattle City Council passed a first-of-its-kind ordinance prohibiting discrimination based on caste in employment, housing, and public accommodation.

Top Five Labor Law Developments for February 2023

By Jonathan J. Spitz Jackson Lewis P.C. March 07 , 2023

The National Labor Relations Board reinstated its previous standard for restricting employee severance agreements.

More From Class Actions

New UK Sanctions Package Would Target Russia's Arms Exports, Front-Line Resources

By Annabel Thomas Greenberg Traurig March 22 , 2023

The UK announced a further round of sanctions and trade measures on 24 February 2023 to coincide with the first anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

PFAS in Drinking Water: EPA Proposes Historic New Regulation

By Bernadette M. Rappold Greenberg Traurig March 17 , 2023

On March 14, 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a proposed National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) which, if finalized, would set enforceable limits, known as Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), for six Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS).

Transfer Motions Take Priority Regardless of Target District

By Jodi Benassi McDermott Will & Emery March 16 , 2023

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted a writ of mandamus and ordered the district court to decide a motion for intra-district transfer before proceeding to further substantive matters, explaining that both intra-district and inter-district transfer motions must be prioritized.

Featured Stories