## Facts

- Hoffmann-La Roche conducted a reduction in force that discharged or demoted about 1,200 workers.
- Former and current employees brought an Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) collective action on behalf of themselves and other “similarly situated” employees.
- Because ADEA enforcement incorporates the Fair Labor Standards Act opt-in mechanism, individuals become party plaintiffs only by filing written consent with the court.
- Plaintiffs sought discovery of names and addresses of potentially similarly situated employees to provide them notice and an opportunity to opt in.
- The district court ordered production of names and addresses and authorized a court-approved notice and consent form stating the court took no position on the case’s merits and did not encourage participation.

## Issues

1. Whether ordering the employer to produce names and addresses of potentially similarly situated employees was proper discovery in an ADEA § 216(b) collective action.
2. Whether a district court has discretion in an ADEA § 216(b) collective action to facilitate notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs through a neutral, court-approved notice.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed.
- The Court held the names and addresses were discoverable because they were relevant to identifying potential opt-in plaintiffs, and the record provided no basis to limit discovery.
- The Court held district courts have discretion, in appropriate cases, to facilitate notice to potential plaintiffs to implement the § 216(b) opt-in scheme in ADEA actions.
- The Court declined to review the specific terms and contents of the notice used in this case.

## Legal Principles

- In ADEA collective actions incorporating 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), a person becomes a party plaintiff only by filing written consent; court-supervised notice can support orderly joinder without changing that requirement.
- District courts have managerial authority to oversee efficient joinder of additional parties in § 216(b) collective actions and may authorize and supervise neutral notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs in appropriate cases.
- Court-approved notice should be evenhanded and should not suggest judicial approval of the suit or encourage participation.
- Discovery of names and addresses of potentially similarly situated employees is generally permissible when relevant and not otherwise restricted under standard discovery limits.

## Conclusion

The Court recognized district courts’ discretionary managerial authority in ADEA § 216(b) collective actions to order discovery of employee contact information and to authorize neutral, court-approved notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs, while leaving the precise notice content largely to lower-court supervision.


Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989)