The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) sets nationwide rules on minimum wage, overtime pay, and child labor. However, the way lawsuits are brought under the FLSA is unusual. Instead of a standard class action, FLSA cases proceed as collective actions. Unlike California state law—which allows broader and often more employee-friendly class actions under the Labor Code—the FLSA applies nationwide and automatically covers certain categories of employers, such as schools, hospitals, and government agencies (29 U.S.C. § 203). This makes FLSA collective actions particularly important in those settings because these institutions often operate across state lines, rely heavily on uniform pay and scheduling practices, and cannot opt out of federal coverage. Even when California employees can pursue overlapping state-law claims, the FLSA provides the common baseline that governs wage-and-hour rights nationwide.

That means workers are not automatically included in the lawsuit. They must affirmatively “opt in” by filing a written consent form with the court. This opt-in process makes collective actions more individualized and gives employers more opportunities to push back on scope.

Courts also use a two-step certification process. At the first step, plaintiffs only need to make a modest showing that they and other workers are “similarly situated.” This does not mean identical jobs, but it does mean the employees share common circumstances that make it sensible to decide their wage claims together—for example, being subject to the same overtime policy or tip-credit practice. At the second step, after discovery, courts take a closer look to see if those similarities really hold up. If not, the collective can be decertified and the case narrowed.

What Happened in Harrington?

In Harrington, a former Cracker Barrel employee brought an FLSA lawsuit and tried to send notice nationwide so that employees in other states could opt in. The trial court allowed this, but the Ninth Circuit reversed.

The appellate court agreed that the two-step certification process applies and that notice can go out even if some workers may later face arbitration defenses. But it drew a hard line on jurisdiction. Relying on the Supreme Court’s Bristol-Myers Squibb decision, the court held that each opt-in plaintiff must have a direct connection to the state where the case is filed. In other words, workers from outside the forum state cannot simply join without showing their own ties to that state.

A Real-World Example

Imagine your company is headquartered in California, but one former employee sues you in Arizona. Under the FLSA, they may try to send out notice to workers across the country, including employees in Florida and Texas, asking them to join the case.

Under Harrington, those Florida and Texas employees cannot piggyback into the Arizona lawsuit. Unless their claims have a direct tie to Arizona, for example, they worked there or were paid under an Arizona-based policy, they are excluded. This keeps the lawsuit limited to the state where the case truly belongs, rather than ballooning into a nationwide action.

Why It Matters for Employers?

For employers, the decision cuts against nationwide lawsuits that draw in employees from far-flung states. It makes venue strategy crucial: if a case is filed in a state that is not the employer’s home base and has no real connection to the claims, the employing entity may be able to limit the lawsuit to in-state employees only.

It is important to note that the Ninth Circuit’s holding is grounded in personal jurisdiction principles—but its reach is limited to FLSA collective actions, not to class actions or other statutory claims. The court applied Bristol-Myers Squibb to the FLSA framework, reasoning that each opt-in plaintiff is a real party whose claim must independently satisfy personal jurisdiction in the forum state.

The Bottom Line

The Harrington decision makes it harder for plaintiffs to transform a single wage-and-hour claim into a nationwide lawsuit in the Ninth Circuit. For employers, this ruling reinforces that collective actions are not boundless—and that careful monitoring of where a case is filed can be the key to narrowing its scope and limiting exposure.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss this topic further, please contact Alexandra “Lexi” Sennet at asennet@tresslerllp.com.

About the Author

Alexandra “Lexi” Sennet is an associate attorney in the Litigation, Employment, and Transportation and Aviation Practice Groups in Tressler’s Los Angeles, CA office. Lexi focuses her practice on defending claims involving wrongful death, personal injury, and property damage. She assists in cases involving employment litigation, premises liability, aviation accidents, motor vehicle incidents, product liability, and complex healthcare-related litigation. Click here to read Lexi’s full attorney bio.