Some District Court Decisions Rejecting Companys’ Argument That FLSA Consent Forms Should Signed Under Penalty of Perjury

In their never-ending quest to beat down FLSA opt-in rates, corporate defendants sometimes argue that opt-in consent forms should require the employee to fill-in various employement information (such as dates of employment) and then swear, under penalty of perjury, that such information is correct. Our firm recently encountered this tactic in a case involving the overtime rights of assistant store managers. Of course, these requirements serve no purpose other than to discourage opt-in patricipation. Here’s some cases that Pennsylvania overtime lawyers (and other overtime attorneys) can cite to in opposing the company’s insistance that opt-in forms must be sworn out under oath: Delaney v. Geisha NYC, LLC, 261 F.R.D. 55, 59-60 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); Romero v. Flaum Appetizing Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80498, *19-21 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2009); Gieskeke v. First Horizon Home Loan Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76732, *6 (D. Kan. Oct. 11, 2006).

Categories: 
Related Posts
  • Trump Administration’s Joint Employment and Independent Contractor Regulations Are “On the Ropes” Read More
  • Two Takeaways From Pennsylvania’s August 2022 PMWA Regulations Read More
  • Worker Misclassification Task Force Releases Report with 15 Unanimous Recommendations for General Assembly Read More
/