In Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Richard Sperling et al., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of employees who sought to file a collective action lawsuit against their employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The case revolved around whether or not an employee must "opt-in" to be part of a collective action suit, and if so, when this should occur. The court held that district courts have discretion to facilitate notice to potential plaintiffs in FLSA suits and that such actions are not limited only to those individuals who have already filed written consent with the court at the time it is certified as a class-action suit. This decision allowed for more efficient handling of these types of cases by permitting earlier identification and notification of potential claimants.

In the dissenting opinion for Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Richard Sperling et al., Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision to allow district courts discretion in facilitating notice to potential plaintiffs in "opt-in" collective actions under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) was a misinterpretation of legislative intent and an overreach of judicial power. He contended that Congress intended for individuals to opt into such lawsuits on their own accord, without court-facilitated notice or encouragement from existing plaintiffs. According to him, this interpretation is consistent with both the language and history of ADEA’s relevant provisions, which were modeled after similar provisions in Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The FLSA had been interpreted by courts not allowing court-facilitated notices before ADEA was enacted; hence he believed it should be assumed Congress intended same approach when they used similar language while drafting ADEA.