From labor disputes cases to labor and employment publications, for your research, you’ll find solutions on Bloomberg Law®. Protect your clients by developing strategies based on Litigation...
By Lisa Nagele-Piazza
Jan. 21 — A U.S. Supreme Court ruling Jan. 20 that an unaccepted offer to settle an individual claim doesn't render a claimant's proposed class action moot may have implications for employment-related actions, particularly wage and hour claims, employment attorneys told Bloomberg BNA.
In a 6-3 decision affirming a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling, the high court found that once a settlement offer is rejected, it has no continued efficacy. The decision is in accord with Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and basic principles of contract law, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority.
In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts said marketing firm Campbell-Ewald Co.'s offer to fully satisfy Jose Gomez's claim rendered the case moot and that “Gomez is not entitled to a ruling on the merits of a moot case.”
“The importance of the case is not its impact, but the lack of devastating impact that it could have had, if the majority had gone Roberts’ direction,” Bryan Schwartz, an employee-side attorney in Oakland, Calif., told Bloomberg BNA in a Jan. 21 e-mail. “It would have been especially devastating to wage claims, which typically involve very modest recovery for each individual plaintiff and class member.”
“This case is another reminder for employers to be mindful of the small things,” management attorney Ryan E. Mick told Bloomberg BNA in a Jan. 20 phone interview. As a best practice, employers should audit their wage and hour practices to make sure there aren't any violations that may affect multiple employees, Mick, a partner at Dorsey & Whitney LLP in Minneapolis, said.
In his class action complaint, Gomez claimed that Campbell-Ewald sent him unsolicited U.S. Navy recruitment text messages in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Before Gomez moved for class certification, the firm offered him about $1,500 to settle his individual claim and filed a Rule 68 offer of judgment. The offer represented the maximum Gomez could receive under the TCPA, but he didn't accept the offer.
Campbell-Ewald sought to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that no case or controversy remained, because the offer provided complete relief and thus mooted Gomez's individual claim. The firm also contended that, because Gomez had yet to move for class certification, the proposed class claim was also moot.
But the Supreme Court ultimately held that once an offer of judgment is rejected, it has no continuing force.
Rule 68 provides that an unaccepted offer of judgment is considered withdrawn if it isn't accepted within 14 days of service. Ginsburg said the “sole built-in sanction” under the rule is that, if the final judgment isn't more favorable that the offer, then “the offeree must pay the costs incurred after the offer was made.”
“In short, with no settlement offer still operative, the parties remained adverse; both retained the same stake in the litigation they had at the outset,” Ginsburg wrote.
The majority also found that a federal contractor isn't entitled to “derivative sovereign immunity” when the contractor exceeds its authority.
The high court faced a similar claim in Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523, 20 WH Cases2d 801 (U.S. 2013) (73 DLR AA-1, 4/16/13).
Genesis HealthCare involved a purported collective action in which the named plaintiff sought unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. As in the present case, Genesis HealthCare made a Rule 68 offer that would have provided Laura Symczyk with full relief.
But the high court found that Symczyk failed to properly challenge the lower courts' rulings that the offer of full relief resolved her individual claim. Therefore, the court assumed without deciding that an unaccepted settlement offer under Rule 68 will render an employee's individual FLSA claim moot.
In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan said, “An unaccepted settlement offer—like any unaccepted contract offer—is a legal nullity, with no operative effect.”
“As every first-year law student learns, the recipient's rejection of an offer ‘leaves the matter as if no offer had ever been made,' ” Kagan added.
Adopting Kagan's analysis, Ginsburg noted that every federal appeals court that has ruled on the issue since Genesis HealthCare has adopted Kagan's reasoning.
The Genesis HealthCare decision opened this intriguing possibility that the defense could “knock out” a class action by satisfying the individual plaintiff's claim, Mark W. Batten, a partner in the labor & employment law department at Proskauer Rose LLP in Boston, told Bloomberg BNA Jan. 21.
But most courts have been reluctant to go that route, Batten said. The Supreme Court is now saying that caution was justified, he said.
The danger with this case was the potential for defendants to “pick off” a litigant's case and defeat a class action, W. James Young, staff attorney at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, said. But the Supreme Court respected the role of the class action against mass tortfeasors, he said.
Young said the decision had a very narrow focus and may not have a substantial effect.
The justices left open the question of whether an actual payment rather than a mere offer would result in a different conclusion.
Campbell-Ewald cited what the high court called “a trio of 19th-century railroad tax cases” in support of its argument that an offer of judgment can render a controversy moot. But those cases involved actual payments of the full amount demanded—not just offers, the majority said.
“None of those decisions suggests that an unaccepted settlement offer can put a plaintiff out of court,” Ginsburg wrote.
The cases Campbell-Ewald cited were based on an unusual California statute involving certain tax obligations, Batten said. While there is some discussion about this being a potential loophole for employers, it may have limited applicability, he said.
The best practice is to never get there in the first place, Mick said. Another good practice is to have employees sign arbitration agreements and class action waivers, which the courts have generally permitted, he said. But Mick cautioned that these agreements aren't appropriate for all situations and have various associated costs.
It is much better to formulate good policies and practices in the first place than to argue the enforceability of these agreements later, Mick said.
Kagan, along with Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, joined the majority. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a separate concurring opinion. Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito joined Roberts's dissenting opinion, and Alito also wrote a separate dissenting opinion.
To contact the reporter on this story: Lisa Nagele-Piazza in Washington at email@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Susan J. McGolrick at firstname.lastname@example.org
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)