## Facts

- Laura Symczyk, a registered nurse, alleged her employer automatically deducted 30 minutes per shift for meal breaks even when no break was taken, resulting in unpaid wages.
- She sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), bringing a collective action on behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees.
- Before any other employee filed written consent to opt in, the employer served Symczyk with a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 offer of judgment that would have fully satisfied her individual claim, including attorneys’ fees and costs.
- Symczyk did not accept the offer.
- The employer moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing the offer mooted Symczyk’s claim and, because no one else had joined, mooted the entire action.

## Issues

1. Whether an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of complete relief moots a plaintiff’s individual claim (addressed only as an assumption).
2. Assuming the named plaintiff’s individual FLSA claim is moot and no other employees have opted in, whether an FLSA collective action may nonetheless continue (including via relation-back or anti–“pick off” theories).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Third Circuit.
- The Court assumed, without deciding, that the unaccepted Rule 68 offer mooted Symczyk’s individual claim because she conceded mootness below and did not properly raise the issue.
- Applying Article III mootness principles, the Court held the collective action was moot once Symczyk’s individual claim was moot and no other employees had opted in.
- The Court rejected reliance on Rule 23 class action precedents, reasoning that FLSA collective actions are structurally different and do not acquire an independent legal status through “conditional certification.”
- The Court held relation-back could not preserve the case on these facts because no other plaintiffs were parties and there was no erroneous denial of certification while a live claim existed.

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts lack Article III jurisdiction when no party has a continuing personal stake in the outcome; a case must remain a live controversy throughout litigation.
- An FLSA § 216(b) collective action is an opt-in mechanism; absent written consents, unnamed employees are not parties.
- Rule 23 class action doctrines that may keep a case live after a named plaintiff’s claim becomes moot do not automatically apply to FLSA collective actions.
- “Conditional certification” in an FLSA collective action does not create an entity with independent legal status that can maintain the suit without a live claim by a party-plaintiff.
- Relation-back is not available to revive a case where, at the relevant time, no plaintiff with a live claim remained and no additional parties had joined.

## Conclusion

The Court held that, assuming the named plaintiff’s individual FLSA claim was mooted by an unaccepted Rule 68 offer, the entire FLSA collective action was also moot when no other employees had opted in, requiring dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.


Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66 (2013)