{"id":4376,"date":"2024-04-22T15:35:59","date_gmt":"2024-04-22T15:35:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cornelllawreview.org\/?p=4376"},"modified":"2026-05-26T17:08:00","modified_gmt":"2026-05-26T17:08:00","slug":"collective-disagreement-the-uneasy-interaction-of-the-flsa-and-frcp-4k-after-bristol-myers-squibb","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/2024\/04\/22\/collective-disagreement-the-uneasy-interaction-of-the-flsa-and-frcp-4k-after-bristol-myers-squibb\/","title":{"rendered":"Collective Disagreement: The Uneasy Interaction of the FLSA and FRCP 4(k) After Bristol-Myers Squibb"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Across the country, due to a circuit split over the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (\u201cRule\u201d) 4(k), federal courts are enforcing the Fair Labor Standards Act (\u201cFLSA\u201d) inconsistently. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This Note argues that, under the current state of the law, Rule 4(k) must be read to apply to out-of-state opt-in employee-plaintiffs\u2019 claims and FLSA collective actions likely cannot be categorically exempt from <em>Bristol-Myers<\/em>. To that end, Part I introduces the FLSA\u2019s collective action mechanism, with an emphasis on congressional intent to reach broadly.<sup> <\/sup>Part II sets forth the present landscape of the circuit split: the Third, Sixth, and Eighth Circuits have found <em>Bristol-Myers <\/em>applicable to collective actions, and the First has concluded otherwise.<sup> <\/sup>Part III presents this Note\u2019s conclusion: while the Third, Sixth, and Eighth Circuits have the better of this circuit split, it is imperative that a change in the law be made. This Note ultimately endorses amending the FLSA to provide for nationwide service of process. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>To read this Note, please click here: <em><a href=\"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2024\/04\/Clarke-note-final.pdf\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2024\/04\/Clarke-note-final.pdf\">Collective Disagreement: The Uneasy Interaction of the FLSA and FRCP 4(k) After Bristol-Myers Squibb.<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Across the country, due to a circuit split over the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (\u201cRule\u201d) 4(k), federal courts are enforcing the Fair Labor Standards Act (\u201cFLSA\u201d) inconsistently. This Note argues that, under the current state of the law, Rule 4(k) must be read to apply to out-of-state opt-in employee-plaintiffs\u2019 claims and FLSA&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[37,46,21,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4376","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-issue-3-print-volume-109","category-notes","category-print-volume-109","category-archives"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4376","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4376"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4376\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5236,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4376\/revisions\/5236"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4376"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4376"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4376"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}