## Facts

- Immigrant cleaning-crew members performed overnight janitorial work in Wal-Mart stores through multiple contractors and subcontractors.
- Plaintiffs sought unpaid overtime and attempted to proceed as a nationwide collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), asserting Wal-Mart functioned as their employer.
- Plaintiffs also alleged Wal-Mart participated in a RICO enterprise that exploited undocumented labor through immigration- and labor-related predicate acts.
- Plaintiffs asserted false imprisonment based on stores being locked during overnight shifts at times when a key-holding manager was not present.
- The district court denied final certification and decertified the previously conditionally certified FLSA collective, and rejected the RICO and false-imprisonment claims.
- Plaintiffs appealed the adverse rulings in the original action.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying final certification and decertifying the FLSA collective action for failure to show plaintiffs were “similarly situated” under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
2. Whether plaintiffs stated and supported viable civil RICO claims against Wal-Mart based on alleged predicate acts connected to undocumented labor.
3. Whether Wal-Mart’s locked-store practices constituted false imprisonment under applicable state law.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed the district court in full.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in decertifying the FLSA collective because the workers were not similarly situated and Wal-Mart faced individualized defenses.
- The court upheld dismissal of the RICO claims because plaintiffs failed to sufficiently connect Wal-Mart to a pattern of racketeering activity through the alleged predicate acts.
- The court affirmed judgment for Wal-Mart on false imprisonment because the workers consented to the locked-door practice by continuing to work under it and means of exit (including emergency exits) were available.

## Legal Principles

- Final-stage certification under FLSA § 216(b) requires a fact-specific showing that opt-in plaintiffs are “similarly situated”; conditional certification does not resolve the question.
- A proposed FLSA collective may be decertified where material differences among workers’ circumstances (worksites, contractors, supervision, and conditions) make collective proof impracticable and generate individualized defenses, including on “employer” status.
- Civil RICO liability requires adequately supported allegations tying the defendant to predicate acts that form a pattern of racketeering activity; generalized assertions about contractor misconduct are insufficient without a concrete link to the defendant’s conduct or direction.
- False imprisonment requires unlawful confinement without consent and without a reasonable means of escape; implied consent and available exits defeat the claim.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit affirmed decertification of the attempted nationwide FLSA collective and affirmed dismissal of the RICO and false-imprisonment claims, concluding that varied employment circumstances required individualized adjudication and that plaintiffs failed to establish Wal-Mart’s RICO liability or unlawful confinement.


Zavala v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 691 F.3d 527 (3d Cir. 2012)