HARRY SWALES; COREY LILLY; KYLE SHETTLES; and JOHN MCGEE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs—Appellees, versus KLLM TRANSPORT SERVICES, L.L.C., Defendant—Appellant,MARCUS BRENT JOWERS, and others similarly situated, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus KLLM TRANSPORT SERVICES, L.L.C., Defendant—Appellant., 985 F.3d 430

Summary

HOLDINGS: [1]-Nothing in the FLSA nor judicial precedent required or authorized any certification process. Instead, the district court's job was to ensure that notice went out to those who were similarly situated, in a way that scrupulously avoided endorsing the merits of the case. A district court abused its discretion when the semantics of certification trumped the substance of similarly situated; [2]-The two-step certification process of Lusardi v. Xerox Corporation, 118 F.R.D. 351 (D.N.J. 1987), was rejected because its flexibility had led to unpredictability, and its rigidity distracted district courts from the ultimate issues before it: [3]-A district court was to identify, at the outset of the case, what facts and legal considerations would be material to determining whether a group of employees was similarly situated and then authorize preliminary discovery accordingly.