Question not identified.

Both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act allow “similarly situated” employees to join an existing lawsuit, but only if th ose employees opt in . 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(b) , 626(b). In Hoffmann -La Roche Inc. v. Sperling , this Court permitted district courts to use their “compulsory process to assist counsel for the plaintiff” in finding employees who have not opted in and notifying them of their opportunity to do so. 493 U.S. 165, 174 (1989) (Scalia, J., dissenting). This Court did not, however, establish a standard for when district courts could or should authorize notice to these other, nonparty employees . Id. at 170 (majority op.). Thirty -six years later, lower courts are still left with “little guidance that one can call law” on the showing plaintiffs must make to obtain court-authorized notice to other employees. Clark v. A&L Homecare & Training Ctr. , 68 F.4th 1003, 1007 (6th Cir. 2023) (Kethledge, J.) . The circuits have filled this gap with four different standards , the latest of which comes from the Seventh Circuit in the decision below. The question s presented are: 1. Whether this Court should overrule Hoffmann La Roche ’s holding that district courts may authorize and facilitate notice to nonparties on behalf of plaintiffs. 2. If this Court does not overrule Hoffmann -La Roche , what standard must plaintiffs satisfy in order for a district court to authorize and facilitate notice to nonparties on behalf of plaintiffs ?