New York, Connecticut and Vermont employers, take note!

On May 4, 2026, the Second Circuit issued a ruling that affects FLSA collective actions. In Provencher v. Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution LLC, the court rules that a federal district court may not authorize notice to out-of-state potential opt-in plaintiffs in an FLSA collective action unless the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant employer relative to those workers’ claims.

The plaintiffs in Provencher were two Vermont delivery drivers who alleged that Bimbo misclassified them as independent contractors and failed to pay them overtime. They sought to send notice of the action not only to similarly situated drivers in Vermont but also to drivers in Connecticut and New York. Bimbo challenged this, asserting that the Vermont federal court did not have personal jurisdiction over Bimbo with respect to claims asserted by non-Vermont drivers. The Second Circuit agreed.

Relying on a 2017 Supreme Court decision, the Second Circuit held that before conditionally certifying an FLSA collective action and authorizing notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs, a district court must ensure that it has personal jurisdiction over the defendant employer with respect to the claims of each of those potential plaintiffs.

The FLSA does not contain a nationwide service of process provision; as such, the Vermont federal court’s personal jurisdiction was limited by Vermont’s long-arm statute and principles of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Since Bimbo is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Pennsylvania and the two plaintiffs could not show that the Connecticut or New York drivers’ claims arose of out Bimbo’s contacts with Vermont, the court’s personal jurisdiction over Bimbo relative to those drivers’ claims could not be established. The mere fact that the Connecticut and New York drivers were purportedly subject to similar pay practices was not enough. The Provencher decision is consistent with similar holdings that have been issued in the Third, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits.

This means that in the Second Circuit, plaintiffs seeking to pursue a multi-state FLSA collective action will generally need to file suit in a forum where the employer is subject is to general jurisdiction (usually its state of incorporation or principal place of business) or limit the proposed group of opt-in plaintiffs to workers whose claims arise out of the employer’s contacts with the forum state. And, employers defending against FLSA collective actions in New York, Connecticut and Vermont may now seek to limit the scope of potential opt-in plaintiffs on the basis of personal jurisdiction objections.

You can read a full copy of the court’s decision here: 24-3112_opn.pdf