In Provencher v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., No. 24-cv-3112 (2d Cir., May 4, 2026), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that a federal trial court must affirm personal jurisdiction over the defendant-employer for each putative class member, before it can conditionally certify a class of opt-in plaintiffs under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the “FLSA”). The decision further deepens the split amongst federal courts of appeals regarding personal jurisdiction in FLSA collective action lawsuits.
Background: Trial Court Permits Notice to Out-of-State Employees
Plaintiffs were Vermont-based employees of Bimbo Bakeries USA, a company incorporated in Delaware with a principal place of business in Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs filed a collective action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont, alleging that Bimbo failed to make certain overtime payments in violation of the FLSA.
The named plaintiffs sought to represent similarly situated employees not only in Vermont but also in Connecticut and New York. They moved for conditional certification and requested authorization to distribute notice to employees in all three states.
Bimbo opposed the motion for conditional class certification, arguing that the Vermont federal court lacked personal jurisdiction over claims brought by putative class members that lived and worked outside of Vermont. The district court sided with the plaintiffs and ruled that they could distribute notice to the putative class members located outside of Vermont. Bimbo appealed this decision to the Second Circuit.
Second Circuit Holds Personal Jurisdiction Must Exist for Each Opt-In Plaintiff
The Second Circuit reversed the district court's decision. It concluded that each opt-in plaintiff’s claims must “arise out of or relate to” the defendant’s contacts with the forum state.
Because nothing in the record tied the Connecticut or New York putative class members’ claims to Bimbo’s Vermont contacts, dismissal was required. In reaching this conclusion, the Second Circuit held that trial courts may not adjudicate claims of out-of-state plaintiffs unless the defendant-employer is “essentially at home” in the forum state or consents to the suit there.
Further, under the Second Circuit’s ruling, each employee participating in the FLSA collective action must independently establish that the court has jurisdiction over their claim.
As a result, plaintiffs can no longer rely on an employer's general business presence within a state to pursue broad, multi-state FLSA collective actions in federal courts within the Second Circuit.
Impact on the Growing Circuit Split in FLSA Collective Actions
The decision adds to an ongoing divide among federal appellate courts regarding whether personal jurisdiction must be established separately for each opt-in plaintiff in FLSA collective actions.
By adopting a more restrictive jurisdictional approach, the Second Circuit joins courts that require individualized jurisdictional analysis for out-of-state opt-in plaintiffs. The ruling is likely to influence forum selection strategies and increase litigation over jurisdictional challenges in wage and hour cases.
Practical Implications for Employers Defending FLSA Collective Actions
Following the Second Circuit decision, the plaintiffs must establish personal jurisdiction over the defendant-employer for each putative class member. As a result, employers with operations in multiple states may have success in preventing class certification of a FLSA collective action involving the plaintiffs from outside the sitting court’s jurisdiction, even where those plaintiffs are situated in the same vicinity or federal appellate circuit.
This decision provides employers with a potentially potent personal-jurisdiction challenge that can result in dismissal of putative class members’ attempts to obtain class certification. However, employers must remain mindful of the consequences in challenging collective actions, as preventing a nationwide action from proceeding in one state, in one action, may invite multiple lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions - a potentially unwanted outcome that could ultimately increase costs and lead to protracted litigation. Some commentators predict that the Second Circuit’s recent decision may lead to an increase in multidistrict litigation (i.e. “MDLs”) as a means of coordinating parallel filings in multiple judicial districts.
Certainly, the Second Circuit decision provides employers with a potentially dispositive challenge that, while complicating the matter procedurally, could yield favorable results and prevent or limit class-wide litigation and certification.
What Employers Should Do Next
The Second Circuit's decision underscores the growing importance of personal jurisdiction challenges in FLSA collective actions. Employers confronting wage and hour litigation should review their litigation strategies in light of this developing circuit split.
If you have questions about the Second Circuit's decision or its potential impact on your workplace policies or business activities, please contact a member of our Labor & Employment Practice Group. We will continue to monitor developments in this evolving area of wage and hour law.
