UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ BROOKE CLARK, │ Plaintiff, │ │ LARRY HOLDER; CALVIN MARCUM, JESSICA > Nos. 22-3101/3102 │ VANWINKLE, │ Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, │ │ v. │ │ │ A&L HOMECARE AND TRAINING CENTER, LLC; NILA │ IRBY; DAWNETTA ABBETT, RUTHIE LUCAS, │ Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees. │ ┘

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati. No. 1:20-cv-00757—Matthew W. McFarland, District Judge.

Argued: December 7, 2022

Decided and Filed: May 19, 2023

Before: KETHLEDGE, WHITE, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.

_________________

COUNSEL ARGUED: M. Scott McIntyre, BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellants/Cross-Appellees. Gregory R. Mansell, MANSELL LAW LLC, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants. ON BRIEF: M. Scott McIntyre, BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP, Cincinnati, Ohio, Gregory V. Mersol, BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellants/Cross-Appellees. Gregory R. Mansell, Carrie J. Dyer, Rhiannon M. Herbert, MANSELL LAW LLC, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants. Steven P. Lehotsky, LEHOTSKY KELLER LLP, Washington, D.C., Lindsey Rothfeder, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., Richard J. (Rex) Burch, BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC, Houston, Texas, Andrew R. Biller, BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC, Cincinnati, Nos. 22-3101/3102 Clark, et al. v. A&L Homecare and Training Ctr, et al. Page 2

Ohio, Robert E. DeRose, BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Amici Curiae.

KETHLEDGE, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which BUSH, J., joined in full, and WHITE, J., joined in part. BUSH, J. (pp. 11–14), delivered a separate concurring opinion, in which WHITE, J., joined. WHITE, J. (pp. 15–23), delivered a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. _________________

OPINION _________________

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), plaintiffs may litigate federal minimum-wage and overtime claims on behalf of other “similarly situated” employees. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). At issue here is the showing of similarity that is necessary for a district court to facilitate notice of an FLSA suit to employees who were not originally parties to the suit. District courts nationwide have had little guidance as to what that showing should be. We adopt a standard different than the one the district court adopted here, and remand for the district court to apply it.

I.

A.

The FLSA mandates that employers pay a federal minimum wage and overtime to certain types of employees. 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a), 207(a). Employees can sue for alleged violations of those mandates on “behalf of . . . themselves and other employees similarly situated.” Id. § 216(b).