FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3122549729> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3122549729 startingPage "725" @default.
• W3122549729 abstract "In race and sex discrimination class actions, if a defendant employer makes a Rule 68 offer of judgment to the named plaintiffs, courts routinely refuse to dismiss the class claims. In stark contrast, in collective actions for failure to pay lawful wages, if a defendant employer makes a Rule 68 offer of judgment, courts will often dismiss the entire collective action as having been mooted by the named plaintiffs' recovery. The outcome of such a dichotomy is that low-wage workers are increasingly unable to challenge unlawful wage violations successfully because the aggregation mechanism is too easily defeated. Without an ability to group wage and hour claims in an aggregate action, multitudes of wage violations will go unheard because individual wage claims do not attract the attention of plaintiffs' attorneys. This failure to protect an underprivileged group of low-wage workers-workers the laws explicitly try to protect-is striking, and it effectively subverts the statutory protections in place since the 1930s to combat wage theft by employers. By most accounts, the civil rights movement of the 1960s was successful in addressing discriminatory practices through not only substantive statutory rights, but also through procedural mechanisms by which those rights could be vindicated easily and appropriately via access to the courts. In contrast, the right of low-wage workers to receive what they lawfully earn has a longstanding statutory remedy but an antiquated procedural mechanism. That procedural mechanism diminishes their ability to fully vindicate their rights. Furthermore, it is also now being cited as the structural difference that allows another procedural rule, Rule 68, to deny standing in federal court at the outset. This Article examines this rising phenomenon by first outlining the pressing societal need for collective litigation to ensure that adequate and available legal remedies remain for underrepresented groups such as low-wage workers. It also compares the procedural mechanisms for bringing aggregate litigation-Rule 23 class actions and § 216(b) collective actions-and examines how Rule 68 has both intended and unintended consequences when used by defendants to battle collective actions. Lastly, the Article identifies how federal courts have treated Rule 68 offers of judgment inconsistently in the class action context compared to the § 216(b) collective action context. INTRODUCTION If the rising number of lawsuits against major corporate employers is any indication, the United States is suffering a crisis of wage theft against its workers. Claims by workers that they are not being paid lawfully have quadrupled over the last ten years - increasing by 73 percent from 2006 to 2007 alone1 - without any corresponding increase in protections in the wage and hour laws. What has changed? Perhaps employers with dwindling revenues are taking the bite out of the backs of their workers. Or perhaps plaintiffs' attorneys are becoming increasingly savvy at bringing these suits successfully. Either way, management attorneys are becoming correspondingly creative in finding ways to block them - including use of a tactic that this Article identifies as troubling. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 (Rule 68) offers of judgment are being used with increased frequency by employers attempting to avoid liability for wage theft in cases involving numerous plaintiffs. When defendants make offers of judgment that equal or exceed the named plaintiffs' maximum recovery in collective actions brought under the opt-in provision of 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (for violations of the wage rights provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)),2 courts frequently rule the collective claims moot and dismiss the collective suit. By making early offers of judgment in collective actions,3 employers seek to pick off' named plaintiffs and thereby avoid compensating all of the workers to whom they have failed to pay correct wages. …" @default.
• W3122549729 created "2021-02-01" @default.
• W3122549729 creator A5081307197 @default.
• W3122549729 date "2010-04-01" @default.
• W3122549729 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W3122549729 title "Facilitating Wage Theft: How Courts Use Procedural Rules to Undermine Substantive Rights of Low-Wage Workers" @default.
• W3122549729 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W3122549729 type Work @default.
• W3122549729 sameAs 3122549729 @default.
• W3122549729 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W3122549729 countsByYear W31225497292014 @default.
• W3122549729 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3122549729 hasAuthorship W3122549729A5081307197 @default.
• W3122549729 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W3122549729 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W3122549729 hasConcept C158129432 @default.
• W3122549729 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W3122549729 hasConcept C169437150 @default.
• W3122549729 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3122549729 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W3122549729 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3122549729 hasConcept C2776665811 @default.
• W3122549729 hasConcept C2776687834 @default.
• W3122549729 hasConcept C2777388388 @default.
• W3122549729 hasConcept C2777919471 @default.
• W3122549729 hasConcept C2777932401 @default.
• W3122549729 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W3122549729 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W3122549729 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W3122549729 hasConcept C97460637 @default.
• W3122549729 hasConceptScore W3122549729C11413529 @default.
• W3122549729 hasConceptScore W3122549729C144133560 @default.
• W3122549729 hasConceptScore W3122549729C158129432 @default.
• W3122549729 hasConceptScore W3122549729C162324750 @default.
• W3122549729 hasConceptScore W3122549729C169437150 @default.
• W3122549729 hasConceptScore W3122549729C17744445 @default.
• W3122549729 hasConceptScore W3122549729C190253527 @default.
• W3122549729 hasConceptScore W3122549729C199539241 @default.
• W3122549729 hasConceptScore W3122549729C2776665811 @default.
• W3122549729 hasConceptScore W3122549729C2776687834 @default.
• W3122549729 hasConceptScore W3122549729C2777388388 @default.
• W3122549729 hasConceptScore W3122549729C2777919471 @default.
• W3122549729 hasConceptScore W3122549729C2777932401 @default.
• W3122549729 hasConceptScore W3122549729C41008148 @default.
• W3122549729 hasConceptScore W3122549729C48103436 @default.
• W3122549729 hasConceptScore W3122549729C94625758 @default.
• W3122549729 hasConceptScore W3122549729C97460637 @default.
• W3122549729 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W3122549729 hasLocation W31225497291 @default.
• W3122549729 hasOpenAccess W3122549729 @default.
• W3122549729 hasPrimaryLocation W31225497291 @default.
• W3122549729 hasRelatedWork W1479776398 @default.
• W3122549729 hasRelatedWork W1544554533 @default.
• W3122549729 hasRelatedWork W1569137271 @default.
• W3122549729 hasRelatedWork W2050346172 @default.
• W3122549729 hasRelatedWork W2199242591 @default.
• W3122549729 hasRelatedWork W2244651353 @default.
• W3122549729 hasRelatedWork W2283328197 @default.
• W3122549729 hasRelatedWork W2709362203 @default.
• W3122549729 hasRelatedWork W2793727428 @default.
• W3122549729 hasRelatedWork W2963367127 @default.
• W3122549729 hasRelatedWork W3118654954 @default.
• W3122549729 hasRelatedWork W3122025605 @default.
• W3122549729 hasRelatedWork W3122045466 @default.
• W3122549729 hasRelatedWork W3125463918 @default.
• W3122549729 hasRelatedWork W3125795548 @default.
• W3122549729 hasRelatedWork W3138897967 @default.
• W3122549729 hasRelatedWork W3152626953 @default.
• W3122549729 hasRelatedWork W3185006271 @default.
• W3122549729 hasRelatedWork W348620870 @default.
• W3122549729 hasRelatedWork W2145082396 @default.
• W3122549729 hasVolume "63" @default.
• W3122549729 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3122549729 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3122549729 magId "3122549729" @default.
• W3122549729 workType "article" @default.