Labor + Employment Workforce Watch is a guide to the employment law developments most likely to impact your business. The Troutman Pepper Locke Labor + Employment Team represents employers in the most sensitive workplace matters, enabling our clients to concentrate on their core business operations. Our team is adept at handling and managing labor and employment issues on national, international, and local levels. Recognized as a leading law firm by Chambers USA, our attorneys provide comprehensive advice on every type of employment issue a company may encounter, at every stage of the employment life cycle.

Effective July 1, new legislation will take effect in Virginia imposing further restrictions on the use of covenants not to compete and prohibiting their use for employees who are eligible to receive overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), i.e., non-exempt employees.

Q: Can an employee opt into an FLSA collective action if the employee does not reside in the state in which the action is pending?

A: Unless an action is filed in the state in which an employer is incorporated or headquartered, the answer to this question varies by jurisdiction. In August 2021, both the Sixth Circuit (covering federal courts in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee) and the Eighth Circuit (covering federal courts in Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota) answered this question in the negative, requiring that opt-in plaintiffs under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) reside in the state in which an action was filed for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction. Earlier this year, the First Circuit (covering federal courts in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island) reached the opposite conclusion, reasoning that disallowing nonresident opt-in plaintiffs from joining FLSA collective actions would frustrate the purposes of the collective action mechanism.

On July 26, the Third Circuit (covering federal courts in Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) sided with the Sixth and Eighth circuits, further nudging the existing circuit split in favor of employers.