Seymour v. Coughlin Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that at the initial notice stage, plaintiffs need only make “substantial allegations” that they were collectively “the victims of a single decision, policy, or plan infected by discrimination.”
• explaining that at the initial notice stage, plaintiffs need only make “substantial allegations” that they were collectively “the victims of a single decision, policy, or plan infected by discrimination.”
• noting that to avoid any confusion between opt-in and subsequent opt-out choices, and between notice from plaintiffs [i.e., under Section 216(b)] and notice from the court [i.e., under Rule 23], ADEA notice would be separated in time from any Rule 23 notice which may eventually be required
• courts generally require only “substantial allegations that the putative class members were together the victim of a single decision, policy, or plan infected by discrimination.”
• key inquiry for determining whether class members are “similarly situated” is whether they were victims of a “single decision, policy, or plan” of age discrimination
• “The requirements for pursuing a section 216(b) class action are independent of and unrelated to the requirements of a class action filed pursuant to Rule 23.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).