In a development with far reaching consequences for wage and hour litigation across the United States, the Supreme Court of the United States has declined to intervene in a closely watched dispute concerning the territorial reach of collective actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act. By refusing to review the case of Harrington v Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, the Court has effectively preserved a deepening division among federal appellate courts on whether workers may pursue multi state wage claims in a single federal forum.
At stake is not merely procedural nuance, but the structural viability of nationwide collective actions under federal wage law. The Court’s decision leaves employers and employees navigating a fragmented judicial landscape that materially alters litigation strategy, settlement leverage and access to justice.
The jurisdictional fault line in FLSA litigation
The dispute arose after employees of Cracker Barrel Old Country Store filed suit in federal court in Arizona, alleging they were improperly paid the tipped minimum wage while performing non tipped duties and required to work off the clock. Although the plaintiffs worked in Arizona, Ohio, North Carolina and Florida, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that only Arizona workers could participate in the collective action.
The appellate court reasoned that collective actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act are aggregations of individual claims rather than a single unified class claim. On that basis, it concluded that federal courts lack personal jurisdiction over claims by out of state workers unless there is a specific connection between those claims and the forum state.
This reasoning has now been adopted by at least five federal circuits since 2021. By contrast, the First Circuit has taken the opposite view, holding that the statutory design of the Fair Labor Standards Act contemplates broad collective enforcement across state lines.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to resolve this circuit split entrenches doctrinal uncertainty.
The shadow of Bristol Myers and the expansion of personal jurisdiction doctrine
The controversy is rooted in the Court’s 2017 ruling in Supreme Court of the United States in Bristol Myers Squibb Co v Superior Court of California, which held that state courts lacked jurisdiction over non resident plaintiffs in a product liability action where their claims bore no connection to the forum state.
Employers have since invoked that precedent to argue that federal courts similarly lack jurisdiction over out of state workers in Fair Labor Standards Act cases. Several circuits have accepted this extension, applying personal jurisdiction principles developed in mass tort litigation to federal wage claims.
Yet the analogy is far from seamless. The Fair Labor Standards Act expressly provides for collective actions to promote efficient resolution of wage disputes involving employers operating across multiple states. Critics argue that importing Bristol Myers into the FLSA context disregards the statutory purpose of enabling coordinated enforcement against nationwide employers.
By declining review, the Supreme Court has left lower courts to reconcile constitutional jurisdiction doctrine with congressional design without definitive guidance.
Implications for employers: Forum strategy and risk containment
For employers, the Court’s inaction represents a significant, though uneven, defensive victory. Multi state collective actions have historically been concentrated in plaintiff friendly jurisdictions, often resulting in substantial settlements due to aggregated exposure.
Limiting cases to single state plaintiffs reduces the scale of potential liability and fragments litigation risk. Employers may now face multiple parallel suits in different states rather than one consolidated action. While this increases administrative burden, it may dilute settlement pressure and reduce the risk of sweeping nationwide judgments.
The ruling in favour of Cracker Barrel eliminated approximately ninety per cent of the plaintiffs from the Arizona action. That reduction illustrates the practical effect of the jurisdictional limitation.
Implications for workers: Access to justice under strain
From the claimant perspective, the fragmentation of collective actions presents profound practical barriers. Wage claims often involve relatively modest individual sums. The economic viability of such litigation frequently depends upon aggregation.
If workers must initiate separate state specific collective actions, the cost of coordination increases dramatically. In some cases, employees may lack the financial or organisational capacity to pursue claims at all. The plaintiffs in the Cracker Barrel matter argued that the Fair Labor Standards Act was enacted precisely to conserve judicial resources and enable workers to vindicate federal rights collectively.
The current judicial divide undermines that objective by conditioning access to collective redress on geography.
Federalism, statutory design and institutional silence
The Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene is notable given that it has previously declined review in related cases, including one arising from the First Circuit’s contrary position. This pattern suggests either institutional caution or a reluctance to revisit the scope of personal jurisdiction so soon after Bristol Myers.
Yet the consequences are increasingly systemic. Employers operating nationally now face divergent exposure depending on the circuit in which suit is filed. Workers in some jurisdictions retain the ability to proceed collectively across state lines, while others do not.
Such disparity raises fundamental questions about uniform enforcement of federal labour standards. When the interpretation of a federal statute varies by circuit, the principle of national consistency in employment regulation is compromised.
The road ahead: Legislative or judicial clarification
Absent Supreme Court intervention, pressure may mount for congressional clarification of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Congress could amend the statute to specify the permissible geographic scope of collective actions in federal court, thereby resolving ambiguity created by evolving jurisdictional doctrine.
In the interim, litigants will continue testing the boundaries of personal jurisdiction in wage cases. Employers are likely to challenge nationwide collective actions aggressively, while plaintiff counsel may forum shop strategically in circuits that permit broader aggregation.
The unresolved conflict ensures that the issue will return to the Supreme Court’s docket eventually. The stakes are too significant and the split too pronounced for indefinite avoidance.
A procedural question with substantive consequences
The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the Cracker Barrel case is procedurally modest yet substantively profound. It preserves a fractured legal landscape in which the scope of federal wage enforcement depends on appellate geography.
For multinational employers, the ruling reshapes risk assessment and litigation strategy. For workers, it may restrict meaningful access to collective redress. For the federal judiciary, it prolongs doctrinal uncertainty at the intersection of constitutional jurisdiction and statutory labour policy.
In declining to bite, the Court has ensured that the debate over the reach of the Fair Labor Standards Act will intensify rather than subside.