In Fair Labor Standards Act cases, plaintiffs sometimes seek to toll the limitations period of any members of the proposed collective where judicial delays occur while a motion for conditional certification is pending. This blog post explores the circumstances under which courts may grant equitable tolling, thereby preserving the rights of potential opt-in plaintiffs during these delays.

Understanding Equitable Tolling

Equitable tolling is a legal doctrine that allows for extending the statute of limitations under certain circumstances, particularly when strict adherence to the timeline would be unjust. The principle is rooted in the notion that no party should benefit from their own wrongdoing. It is particularly relevant in collective actions under the FLSA, where the statute of limitations can significantly impact the rights of absent class members.

The FLSA and Statute of Limitations

Under the FLSA, the statute of limitations for claims is generally two years, extending to three years for willful violations. Importantly, the limitations period for named plaintiffs begins when they file their complaint, while for opt-in plaintiffs, it commences upon their opt-in date. This distinction is crucial, as it means that potential opt-in plaintiffs may lose their claims if the court does not act promptly on motions for conditional certification.

Judicial Delays and Their Impact

Judicial delays can arise from various procedural complexities, including the time taken for courts to rule on motions for conditional certification. Such delays can be detrimental to potential opt-in plaintiffs, as each passing week may result in losing their claims. The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of timely notice for potential class members, underscoring that delays can undermine the benefits of collective actions.

Case Law Supporting Equitable Tolling

Courts have routinely granted equitable tolling in FLSA collective actions where procedural delays have occurred. For instance, in Yahraes v. Restaurant Associates Events Corp., the court tolled the statute of limitations due to a nine-month delay in ruling on a motion for conditional certification. The court acknowledged that the plaintiffs had diligently pursued their claims and that the delays were not their fault. This precedent illustrates the judiciary’s readiness to safeguard the rights of potential opt-in plaintiffs when faced with undue delays.

Moreover, when the court’s delay is deemed an “extraordinary circumstance,” equitable tolling becomes increasingly warranted. For example, if a court takes excessive time to decide on a motion, this can be seen as a factor supporting tolling, as it is beyond the plaintiffs’ control. Similarly, in Klick v. Cenikor, 509 F.Supp.3d 951 (S.D.Tex. 2020), Judge Ellison in the Southern District of Texas tolled limitations while a motion for certification was pending. In that case, the court found that a delay of one-and-a-half years before ruling on a motion for certification constituted extraordinary circumstances justifying equitable tolling.  Lastly, a federal court in Colorado also ruled that limitations were being considered while the conditional certification motion was being considered. 

In Yslas v. Wal-Mart, Cause No. 22-cv-1880 (March 22, 2024), the court determined that the motion’s ripeness for nearly a year created a delay that should not, in the interest of justice, count against the potential members of the collective action. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, judicial delays in ruling on motions for conditional certification can significantly impact potential opt-in plaintiffs in FLSA collective actions, potentially barring their claims due to the statute of limitations. Courts have recognized this issue and have granted equitable tolling in cases where such delays constitute extraordinary circumstances beyond the plaintiffs’ control. As seen in decisions like Yahraes v. Restaurant Associates Events Corp., Klick v. Cenikor, and Yslas v. Wal-Mart, courts are willing to apply equitable tolling to preserve the rights of potential plaintiffs when procedural delays threaten to undermine the purpose of the FLSA. These rulings emphasize the importance of timely judicial action in collective actions and reaffirm the principle that plaintiffs should not be penalized for delays beyond their control.