D. New Jersey· 1/5/1988
Sperling v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc.
Citations
- 118 F.R.D. 392
- 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1156
- 48 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 990
- 1988 WL 283
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).
Judges: Ackerman
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
75 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Hipp v. Liberty National Life InsuranceEleventh Circuit· 2001-05-29· cited 468×
- Unnamed caseFifth Circuit· 1995-06-20· cited 345×
- Grayson v. K Mart Corp.Eleventh Circuit· 1996-04-09· cited 329×
- Ruehl v. Viacom, Inc.Third Circuit· 2007-09-17· cited 169×
- Brooke Clark v. A&L Homecare &Training Ctr.Sixth Circuit· 2023-05-19· cited 159×
- Morisky v. Public Service Electric & Gas Co.D. New Jersey· 2000-08-15· cited 112×
- Mooney v. Aramco Services Co.Fifth Circuit· 1995-06-20· cited 107×
- Vaszlavik v. Storage Technology Corp.D. Colorado· 1997-11-26· cited 91×
- Adams v. Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc.N.D. California· 2007-04-11· cited 75×
- Camper v. Home Quality Management Inc.D. Maryland· 2000-09-21· cited 74×
- Wynn v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc.C.D. California· 2002-01-24· cited 63×
- Brown v. Money Tree Mortgage, Inc.D. Kansas· 2004-08-23· cited 60×
- Bayles v. American Medical Response of Colorado, Inc.D. Colorado· 1996-12-31· cited 59×
- Parker v. Rowland Express, Inc.D. Minnesota· 2007-06-25· cited 57×
- Rodolico v. Unisys Corp.E.D. New York· 2001-03-30· cited 57×
- Severtson v. Phillips Beverage Co.D. Minnesota· 1991-06-27· cited 54×
- Davis v. Novastar Mortgage, Inc.W.D. Missouri· 2005-11-08· cited 47×
- Thiessen v. General Electric Capital Corp.D. Kansas· 1998-03-11· cited 45×
- Sheffield v. Orius Corp.D. Oregon· 2002-11-08· cited 45×
- D'ANNA v. M/a-com, Inc.D. Maryland· 1995-10-12· cited 43×
Cites
72 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court· 1986-06-25· cited 135,235×
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court· 1986-06-25· cited 119,442×
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court· 1957-11-18· cited 30,380×
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court· 1966-03-28· cited 13,852×
- International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1977-05-31· cited 4,895×
- Griggs v. Duke Power Co.Supreme Court· 1971-03-08· cited 3,596×
- Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. KrogerSupreme Court· 1978-06-21· cited 2,475×
- Delaware State College v. RicksSupreme Court· 1980-12-15· cited 2,132×
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co.Supreme Court· 1946-10-14· cited 2,009×
- Henderson v. CarlsonThird Circuit· 1987-02-27· cited 1,510×
- Dothard v. RawlinsonSupreme Court· 1977-06-27· cited 1,095×
- Gulf Oil Co. v. BernardSupreme Court· 1981-06-01· cited 973×
- Aldinger v. HowardSupreme Court· 1976-06-24· cited 947×
- Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of OhioSupreme Court· 1985-05-28· cited 809×
- Oscar Mayer & Co. v. EvansSupreme Court· 1979-05-21· cited 712×
- Emra Joseph Bonham v. Dresser Industries, Inc., a CorporationThird Circuit· 1978-01-26· cited 290×
- Woolley v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey· 1985-05-09· cited 287×
- Jaime Blum, Brij Kapur and James C. Spitsbergen, in 86-5349 v. Witco Chemical Corporation, in 86-5310Third Circuit· 1987-10-02· cited 241×
- Massarsky v. General Motors Corp.Third Circuit· 1983-04-14· cited 232×
- McKenzie v. General Motors Corp.Supreme Court· 1983-10-31· cited 215×
Other cases named Sperling v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc.
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.