29 U.S.C. § 257

Pending collective and representative actions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar

The statute of limitations prescribed in section 255(b) of this title shall also be applicable (in the case of a collective or representative action commenced prior to May 14, 1947 under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended [29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.]) to an individual claimant who has not been specifically named as a party plaintiff to the action prior to the expiration of one hundred and twenty days after May 14, 1947. In the application of such statute of limitations such action shall be considered to have been commenced as to him when, and only when, his written consent to become a party plaintiff to the action is filed in the court in which the action was brought.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1947–2025 · leading case: Bollinger v. Residential Capital, LLC, 761 F. Supp. 2d 1114 (W.D. Wash. 2011).
Bollinger v. Residential Capital, LLC, 761 F. Supp. 2d 1114 (W.D. Wash. 2011). “29 U.S.C. § 257 ; see also King v. Carey, 405 F.”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n, Appellant, v. Gilbarco, Inc., Appellee, 615 F.2d 985 (4th Cir. 1980). “” 29 U.S.C. § 257 (1976). . There was no suggestion that the non-identity of the parties would have permitted the employees to recover again the back pay which the Administrator had secured in settlement of his § 17 action.”
Brown v. Dunbar & Sullivan Dredging Co., 189 F.2d 871 (2d Cir. 1951). · cites it 2× “” Hence to find when an action is “commenced” we' must refer to § 8, 29 U.S.C.A. § 257 , which says that a “collective or representative action” pending on May 14, 1947 — such as the case at bar — is to “be considered to have been commenced” by an individual claimant “when, and…”
Levine v. Bryant, 700 F. Supp. 949 (N.D. Ill. 1988). “A somewhat similar provision did become part of 29 U.S.C. § 257 (1982). Section 257 reads in pertinent part: [S]uch action shall be considered to have been commenced as to him when, and only when, his written consent to become a party plaintiff to the action is filed in the…”
Prickett v. Consol. Liquidating Corp., 196 F.2d 67 (9th Cir. 1952). · cites it 2× “This contention is based on § 8 of the Portal-to-Portal Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 257 , which provides: “The statute of limitations prescribed in section 6(b) [ 29 U.”
Bartels v. Piel Bros., 74 F. Supp. 41 (E.D.N.Y 1947). · cites it 2× “8, 29 U.S. C.A. § 257. It is upon this basis of this section of the statute that plaintiffs now seek to amend their complaint.”
Lockwood v. Hercules Powder Co., 172 F.2d 775 (8th Cir. 1949). “§ 251 et seq, Section 8, 29 U.S.C.A. § 257 , of that act provides: “Pending collective and representative actions: The statute of limitations prescribed in section 6(b) shall also be applicable (in the case of a collective or representative action commenced prior to the date of…”
Culkin v. Glenn L. Martin Nebraska Co., 97 F. Supp. 661 (D. Neb. 1951). “In the application of such statute of limitations such action shall he considered to have been commenced as to him when, and only when, his written consent to become a party plaintiff to the action is filed in the court in which the action was brought, 29 U.S.C.A. § 257 . Since…”
Iocono v. Anastasio, 79 F. Supp. 378 (S.D.N.Y. 1948). “” 29 U.S.C.A. § 257 . See Bartels v. Sperti, D.”
Bable v. T. W. Phillips Gas & Oil Co., 287 F.2d 21 (3rd Cir. 1961). “§ 255 (b), is not applicable to the eight employees because of the provisions of Section 8 of the same Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 257 , since the action was commenced within one hundred and twenty days after May 14, 1947.”
Carvalho v. Doe, 7 F.R.D. 469 (D. Haw. 1947). “And further, since this motion to intervene and be named plaintiffs has been made and acted upon before the expiration of the 120-day provision of Section 8 of the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, 29 U.S. C.A. § 257, that section is also inapplicable.”
Astarita v. Menard, Inc. (W.D. Mo. 2018). “29 U.S.C. § 257 . Prompt and early notice is therefore important in FLSA collection actions.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.