SHRM Weighs In on a Major Wage and Hour Case

SHRM has submitted an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review Richards v. Eli Lilly & Co., a case that could reshape how wage and hour claims proceed in collective actions. In its decision, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals created a new “material factual dispute” standard, rejecting the long-standing Lusardi “modest factual showing” test. The 7th Circuit acknowledged that its decision created a significant split among federal appeals courts, making Supreme Court review imperative.

The case involves Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective actions, which allow employees to bring claims not only for themselves but also on behalf of others who are “similarly situated.” Unlike class actions, workers must opt in after receiving court-approved notice, making the timing and process of notice critical for both employers and employees.

FLSA collective actions are among the most disruptive and expensive lawsuits employers face. Everyday payroll and compensation issues — including timekeeping, overtime, breaks, and classification — can trigger liability.

By filing an amicus brief, SHRM is highlighting the practical impact of multiple and inconsistent collective-action notice procedures for employees, employers, and HR professionals. The Supreme Court’s review of this case will be an important development for organizations nationwide.