Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WAGE-HOUR—CLASS ACTIONS—S.D. Ohio: Court declines broad text-messaging notice to putative FLSA overtime collective, (Jun 8, 2026)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

The plaintiffs had argued that U.S. mail and email may be ignored or overlooked.

Two employees of Environmental and Safety Solutions, Inc., who allege that the company misclassified them as independent contractors, and that, as a result, they and other similarly situated employees were not paid overtime in violation of the FLSA, are not entitled to either broad court-approved notice of their putative FLSA overtime collective by text message, or issuance of a reminder notice, a federal district judge in Ohio held. Although the court will permit text-message notice only if the initial notice by mail or email is returned undeliverable, the trend in the Southern District of Ohio is to decline to allow issuance of notice by text message, and duplicative notice “may unnecessarily ‘stir up litigation’ or improperly suggest the Court’s endorsement” of the claims (Matthews v. Environmental and Safety Solutions, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-537 (S.D. Ohio June 4, 2026)).

FLSA overtime suit. The two plaintiffs, according to the court, alleged that Environmental and Safety Solutions, Inc., misclassified them as independent contractors. As a result, they allege, they were not paid overtime they were due, in violation of the FLSA.

Request for court-issued notice by text and reminder. At this stage of the putative FLSA collective action, the parties asked the court to issue court-approved notice to potential plaintiffs. All parties were largely on the same page regarding notice; however, there were two discrete issues that the parties disagreed on and asked the court to resolve: (1) issuance of notice by text message and (2) issuance of a reminder notice. The parties filed cross-motions on these issues.

Notice by text. Finding that text-message notice is not appropriate as a blanket measure, the court observed that the trend in the Southern District of Ohio—historically and in recent years—is to decline to allow issuance of notice by text message. The plaintiffs argued that U.S. mail and email may be ignored or overlooked and that text message would be most effective, but the defendants opposed this third method on the bases that U.S. mail and email are sufficient, text-message notice is disfavored in the district, and text-message notice is invasive and raises privacy concerns. Finding “no extenuating circumstances that would justify departing from the routine procedure adopted by judges in this District,” the court declined the plaintiffs’ request. It noted, however, that, in light of a prior compromise proposed by the defendant, it would permit text-message notice only if the initial notice by mail or email is returned undeliverable.

Reminder notice. Declining to permit a reminder notice as well, the court observed that whether a court should permit a reminder notice to be sent to potential opt-in plaintiffs in a FLSA case is discretionary. The employer argued that “reminder notices are unnecessary and risk crossing the line from notification to solicitation,” and the court agreed, citing district precedent indicating that duplicative notice “may unnecessarily ‘stir up litigation’ or improperly suggest the Court’s endorsement” of the claims.

The case is No. 1:25-cv-537.

Judge: Hopkins, J.

Attorneys: Kimberly De Arcangelis (Morgan & Morgan) for Alton Matthews and Lidia Mota. Eric J. Pelton (Kienbaum Opperwall Hardy & Pelton) for Environmental and Safety Solutions, Inc.

Companies: Environmental and Safety Solutions, Inc.

Cases: WageHour ClassActions Overtime Procedure OhioNews