Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling

In 1985, Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. (Hoffmann) (defendant) discharged or demoted approximately 1,200 employees, including Richard Sperling (plaintiff). Sperling filed an age-discrimination claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of himself and all similarly situated employees. Sperling joined with some other employees to form a group, the Roche Age Discriminatees Asking Redress (RADAR). RADAR mailed a letter on group letterhead to 600 employees it identified as potential additional members of the protected class. The letter described their intended collective action against Hoffmann under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and asked the employees to join their suit by filling out and returning an enclosed consent form. RADAR subsequently filed its ADEA action in federal district court and included the consent forms from more than 400 employees it reached through its letters and informal contacts. RADAR asked the district court for discovery of the names and addresses of all similarly situated employees and for the district court to send notice of the collective action to all potential plaintiffs who had not opted in through signed consent forms. Hoffmann objected to both motions and filed a cross-motion asking the district court to invalidate the submitted consents on the grounds that RADAR’s solicitation letter was misleading. The district court granted both of RADAR’s motions and authorized notice with court-approved text and opt-in forms to all employees who had not yet joined the collective action. The district court certified its discovery and notice orders for immediate appeal. The court of appeals affirmed the discovery order and found no legal ground to invalidate the district court’s authority to facilitate the notice. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the scope of the district court’s authority to facilitate notice of the collective action.