Roberta Braunstein v. Eastern Photographic Laboratories, Inc. And Heart of America Portraits, Inc.
Roberta BRAUNSTEIN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EASTERN PHOTOGRAPHIC LABORATORIES, INC. and Heart of America Portraits, Inc., Defendants-Appellants
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
We affirmed by our order entered November 17, 1978 the order of the district court from which an appeal was taken and which appeal was expedited by a prior order of our Court entered September 21, 1978. In light of the petition for rehearing by defendants-appellants addressed to the panel that heard this appeal on the merits and in accordance with our practice in appropriate cases of publishing previously unpublished decisions or orders of this Court, Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Co. v. SEC, 566 F.2d 373 (2 Cir. 1977) (per curiam), we now publish the following opinion in the instant case which in substance is our order entered November 17, 1978.
The essential issue raised on this appeal is whether a district court has the power to order that notice be given to other potential members of the plaintiff class under the “opt-in” provision of the Fair Labor Stan *336 dards Act dealing with actions for nonpayment of statutorily required minimum wages and overtime compensation. 29 U.S.C. § 216 (b) (1976).
We believe that Judge Daly took the proper course in authorizing notice to other potential plaintiffs in this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Although one might read the Act, by deliberate omission, as not providing for notice, we hold that it makes more sense, in light of the “opt-in” provision of § 16(b) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 216 (b), to read the statute as permitting, rather than prohibiting, notice in an appropriate case.
Cantu v. Owatonna Canning Co., Docket No. 3-76-Civ. 374 (D.Minn. April 12, 1978);
Lantz v. B-1202 Corp., 429 F.Supp. 421 (E.D.Mich.1977);
Gomez v. Buckeye Sugars, Inc., Docket No. C73-41 (N.D.Ohio 1973).
Contra, Kinney Shoe Corp. v. Vorhes, 564 F.2d 859 (9 Cir. 1977). Although we agree with Judge Choy’s view in Kinney that due process does not require notice, we do not agree with his conclusion that there is no power in the district court to order it in a proper case.
In our view, this holding comports with the broad remedial purpose of the Act, which should be given a liberal construction, as well as with the interest of the courts in avoiding multiplicity of suits. In short, we believe that the recent trend in the law, see, e.g., Bates & O’Steen v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1976), strips Judge Wyzanski’s rationale of a decade and a half ago in Cherner v. Transitron Electronics Corp., 201 F.Supp. 934 (D.Mass.1962), of much of its force — a rationale which in any event is not controlling on this Court.
Aside from publishing our opinion above, the petition for rehearing is in all respects denied.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 18 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(holding that the district court “has the power to order that notice be given to other potential members of the plaintiff class under the ‘opt-in’ provisions of the [FLSA]”)
-
(noting that the court’s authority to send notice to “similarly situated” employees “comports with the broad remedial purpose of the Act, which should be given a liberal construction, as well as with the interest of the courts in avoiding multiplicity of suits”)
-
(“Although one might read the [FLSA], by deliberate omission, as not providing for notice . . . it makes more sense, in light of the ‘opt-in’ provision of § 16(b) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b)
-
(“Although one might read the [FLSA], by deliberate omission, as not providing for notice, we hold that it makes more sense, in light of the ‘opt-in’ provision of [Section 216(b)], to read the statute as permitting, rather than prohibiting, notice in an appropriate case.”)
-
(interpreting § 216 “as permitting, rather than prohibiting, notice’)
Cited by 119 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Supreme Court1
- U.S. Courts of Appeals17
- Federal District Courts97
- Federal Specialty Courts2
- Territorial Courts2
Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
- Jordan Martinez v. Elegante Services, Inc.
- Miguel Zepeda Sanchez, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective and the Class v. Arsh Landmark General Construction Corp., Garib Taneja, and Muhammad Sabir
- Dana Yoon, on behalf of herself and a class and collective of similarly situated individuals v. Honey 490 Inc.
- Nashaily Ortiz, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
- Daniel West, Romaine Clarke, Ryon Morgan, and Saadala Aboulessan, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. LaserShip, Inc.
- Abbott v. Comme Des Garcons, Ltd.
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.