March 2024 – Page 3 – Class Action Defense

March 7, 2024 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Announcing The Launch Of The Duane Morris Discrimination Class Action Review – 2024!

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer A. Riley

Duane Morris Takeaways: Legal compliance to prevent discrimination is a corporate imperative. Companies and business executives operate in the court of public opinion and workplace inequality continues to grab headlines and remains forefront in the public eye. In this environment, employers can expect discrimination class actions to reach even greater heights in 2024. To that end, the class action team at Duane Morris is pleased to present the inaugural edition of the Duane Morris Discrimination Class Action Review – 2024. This publication analyzes the key discrimination-related rulings and developments in 2023 and the significant legal decisions and trends impacting discrimination class action litigation for 2024. We hope that companies and employers will benefit from this resource in their compliance with these evolving laws and standards.

Class action litigation in the discrimination space remains an area of key focus of skilled class action litigators in the plaintiffs’ bar. Class actions challenging employment policies and practices has a robust history since passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For decades, federal courts routinely granted class certification in nationwide employment discrimination class actions, which often spiked settlements that entailed huge pay-outs and across-the-board changes to HR systems. In turn, significant changes in the workplaces of Corporate America resulted from class action precedents, massive settlements, and injunctive relief orders. This changed in large part over a decade ago when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Wal-Mart Inc. v. Dukes, et al., 564 U.S. 338 (2011). That decision reversed a class certification order in a pay and promotions lawsuit involving 1.5 million class members who asserted claims of sex discrimination in pay and promotions. In handing down this ruling, the Supreme Court tightened the legal requirements for securing class certifications. It simultaneously forced the plaintiffs’ bar to adjust their strategies on how to prosecute class actions, while also fueling new defense strategies for opposing class certification motions. Suddenly gone were the days when nationwide class actions challenging hiring, compensation, and promotion policies of large corporations inevitably ended with across the board certification orders and big settlement checks.

But the pendulum appears to be swinging back, as courts are becoming increasingly inclined to find for plaintiffs in class certification rulings, and thereby raising the potential for large monetary remedies. This is especially true in the discrimination context, as society continues to grapple with widespread inequality in the wake of large scale social justice campaigns like Black Lives Matter and the #MeToo movement. Businesses are being confronted with increasingly employee-friendly legislative changes and a more aggressive plaintiffs’ bar.

Click here to download a copy of the Duane Morris Discrimination Class Action Review – 2024 eBook. Look forward to an episode on the Review coming soon on the Class Action Weekly Wire!

March 6, 2024March 6, 2024 by Class Action Defense

The Class Action Weekly Wire – Episode 46: 2024 Preview: Privacy Class Action Litigation

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partner Jennifer Riley, special counsel Brandon Spurlock, and associate Jeff Zohn with their discussion of 2023 developments and trends in privacy class action litigation as detailed in the recently published Duane Morris Privacy Class Action Review – 2024.

Check out today’s episode and subscribe to our show from your preferred podcast platform: Spotify, Amazon Music, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, the Samsung Podcasts app, Podcast Index, Tune In, Listen Notes, iHeartRadio, Deezer, YouTube or our RSS feed.

Episode Transcript

Jennifer Riley: Welcome to our listeners, thank you for being here for our weekly podcast, the Class Action Weekly Wire. I’m Jennifer Riley, partner at Duane Morris, and joining me today is special counsel Brandon Spurlock and associate Jeffrey Zohn. Thank you for being on the podcast, guys.

Brandon Spurlock: Thank you, Jen, happy to be part of the podcast.

Jeff Zohn: Thanks, Jen, I am glad to be here.

Jennifer: Today on the podcast we are discussing the recent publication of this year’s edition of the Duane Morris Privacy Class Action Review. Listeners can find the eBook publication on our blog, the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog. Brandon, can you tell our listeners a little bit about our new publication?

Brandon: Yeah, sure, Jen, the last year saw a virtual explosion of privacy class action litigation. As a result, compliance with privacy laws in the myriad ways that companies interact with employees, customers, and third parties is a corporate imperative. To that end, the class action team at Duane Morris is pleased to present the Privacy Class Action Review – 2024. This publication analyzes the key privacy-related rulings and developments in 2023, and the significant legal decisions and trends impacting privacy class action litigation for 2024. We hope the companies and employers will benefit from this resource. Their compliance with these evolving laws and standards

Jennifer: In the rapidly evolving privacy litigation landscape, it is crucial for businesses to understand how courts are interpreting these often ambiguous privacy statutes. In 2023, courts across the country issued a mixed bag of results leading to major victories for both plaintiffs and defendants. Jeff, what were some of the takeaways from the publication with regard to litigation in this area in 2023?

Jeff: Yeah, you’re absolutely right that there was a mixed bag of results – both defendants and plaintiffs can point to major BIPA victories in 2023. This past year will definitely be remembered for some of the landmark pro-plaintiff rulings that will provide the plaintiffs’ bar with more than enough ammunition to keep BIPA litigation in the headlines for the foreseeable future. Specifically in 2023, the Illinois Supreme Court issued two seminal decisions that increase the opportunity for recovery of damages under BIPA, including Tims, et al. v. Black Horse Carriers, which held a five-year statute of limitations applies to claims under BIPA, and Cothron, et al. v. White Castle System, Inc., which held that a claim accrues under the BIPA each time a company collects or discloses biometric information.

Jennifer: Two major rulings indeed. Brandon, what do you anticipate these rulings will mean for privacy class actions in 2024?

Brandon: Sure, Jen. These rulings have far-reaching implications together. They have the potential to increase monetary damages in BIPA class actions in an exponential manner, especially in employment context, where employees may scan in and out of work multiple times per day across more than 200 workdays per year. In 2023, in the wake of these rulings, class action filings more than doubled. We anticipate that the high volume of case filings will continue at 2024.

Jeff: I think it’s important to add that even though BIPA is an Illinois state statue, various other states are continuing to consider proposed copycat statutes that follow the lead of Illinois. The federal government likewise continues to consider proposals for a national statute. These factors have transformed biometric privacy compliance into a top priority for businesses nationwide and have promoted privacy class actions to the top of the list of litigation risks facing business today. If other states succeed in enacting similar statutes, businesses can expect similar surges in those States as the filing numbers of Illinois continue their upward trend.

Jennifer: Thanks so much for that information – all very important for companies navigating the privacy class action regulations and statutes. The Review also talks about the top privacy settlements in 2023. How did plaintiffs do in securing settlement funds last year?

Brandon: Plaintiffs did very well in securing high dollar settlements. In 2023, the top 10 privacy settlements totaled $1.32 billion. This was a significant increase over 2022, when the top 10 privacy class action settlements totaled still a high number, but just almost $900 million. Specific to BIPA litigation settlements, the top 10 BIPA class action settlements totaled almost $150 million dollars in 2023.

Jennifer: Thank you. We will continue to track those settlement numbers in 2024 as record breaking settlement amounts have been a huge trend that we have tracked over the past two years. Thank you to Brandon and Jeff for being here today, and thank you to the loyal listeners for tuning in. Listeners, please stop by the blog for a free copy of the Privacy Class Action Review eBook.

Jeff: Thank you for having me, Jen, and thank you to all of our listeners.

Brandon: Thanks so much, everyone.

March 6, 2024 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Ohio Federal Court Decertifies FLSA Collective Action In Latest Application Of Sixth Circuit’s “Strong Likelihood” Standard

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Kathryn Brown

Duane Morris Takeaways: On February 29, 2024, in Miller II v. SBK Delivery, LLC, No. 2:21-CV-04744 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 29, 2024), Judge Michael H. Watson of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio applied the Sixth Circuit’s standard in Clark v. A&L Homecare and Training Center, LLC, 68 F.4th 1003 (6th Cir. 2023,) to decertify a collective action of delivery drivers seeking unpaid overtime under the FLSA. As one of the first decertification rulings applying the Clark standard, the Court’s opinion is required reading for businesses litigating FLSA claims before courts in the Sixth Circuit.

Case Background

On September 22, 2021, the plaintiff in Miller II filed a Complaint against the defendant, SBK Delivery, LLC. The defendant contracted with multiple package carriers to provide delivery drivers. The package carriers paid the defendant for each package the drivers delivered. The defendant then paid each driver a percentage of the payment it received from the package carrier. The plaintiff asserted claims of unpaid overtime under the FLSA and Ohio law as well as a breach of contract claim. The plaintiff filed the FLSA claims on behalf of a proposed collective action of drivers who entered into independent contractor agreements with the defendant to provide services as delivery drivers.

On February 9, 2022, the Court approved the parties’ joint stipulation to conditionally certify and issue notice to a collective action consisting of current and former delivery drivers who performed work for the defendant between September 22, 2018 and the present who worked over 40 hours per workweek and were classified as independent contractors.

Nineteen (19) individuals filed consents to join the lawsuit as prospective opt-in plaintiffs.

On March 22, 2023, the defendant filed a motion to decertify the collective action. Prior to the close of briefing on the decertification motion, on May 19, 2023, the Sixth Circuit issued its pivotal decision in Clark.

In Clark, the Sixth Circuit articulated a “strong likelihood” standard for facilitating notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the FLSA. Under the new standard, only after demonstrating a “strong likelihood” that similarly situated other employees exist may opt-in plaintiffs become parties to the named plaintiff’s lawsuit.

Following the Sixth Circuit’s ruling, the parties filed supplemental briefing to address the similarly-situated status of the collective under Clark.

The Court’s Ruling

Because the parties had stipulated to conditional certification prior to the Sixth Circuit’s ruling in Clark, the Court had not had an earlier opportunity to rule on the plaintiff’s similarly-situated status relative to those in the collective action prior to the issuance of notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs.

Applying the Clark standard to the plaintiff’s claims for the first time, the Court held that the plaintiff failed to show a strong likelihood that he was in fact “similarly situated” to the putative opt-in plaintiffs.

The Court reasoned that it was not enough for the plaintiff to show that he was subject to the same alleged FLSA-violating policy of misclassification as an independent contractor of the defendant. The plaintiff also needed to establish that the question of the amount and extent of alleged unpaid overtime could be determined on a collective-wide basis.

The Court found the plaintiff dissimilar from the opt-ins in multiple key respects, including with respect to the route assignment a driver chose, since each route assignment had different start times, end times and duration. Based on individual differences in whether a driver worked overtime hours, the Court reasoned that evidence of the named plaintiff’s hours worked would not be representative of the claims of the opt-in plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Court concluded that it would need to analyze individually each opt-in plaintiff’s overtime claims to determine liability, which would be completely contrary to the purpose of the collective action mechanism.

As a result of the Court’s application of Clark, it held that the plaintiff’s FLSA claims must proceed on an individual basis only. For these reasons, the Court dismissed each of the opt-in plaintiff’s claims without prejudice.

Implications For Employers

The Court’s ruling in Miller II demonstrates that the Clark standard is a game changer for FLSA litigants in district courts within the Sixth Circuit.

To satisfy the “strong likelihood” iteration of the similarly-situated standard for FLSA certification, plaintiffs must show more than the existence of a common policy or practice that allegedly violates the FLSA. The ruling highlights the opportunity the Clark standard affords to defendants to whittle down the scope of an FLSA lawsuit significantly by marshaling facts of dissimilarity between the named plaintiff and others. To maximize the ability to prevail on a certification ruling under the Clark standard, companies ought to devote significant resources to managing FLSA compliance risks on the front end, before any litigation arises.

March 5, 2024 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Federal Court In Kansas Blows Up ADEA Collective Action Against Learjet, Inc. And Bombardier, Inc., Granting Defendants’ Motion To Decertify

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Gregory Tsonis

Duane Morris Takeaways: In a decisive ruling on February 29, 2024, Judge Eric F. Melgren of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas granted the motion by defendants Bombardier, Inc. (“Bombadier”) and its subsidiary Learjet, Inc., (“Learjet”) in Wood, et al. v. Learjet Inc. et al., Case No. 18-CV-02681 (D. Kan. Feb. 29, 2024), to decertify a collective action brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). This landmark decision underscores the increased scrutiny applied during the decertification stage of collective actions, especially concerning allegations under the ADEA, and how defendants can successfully achieve decertification by attacking proffered evidence and establishing the individualized inquiries which preclude proceeding as a collective action.

Case Background

The lawsuit originated from claims by two named plaintiffs, both over the age of 40 and former employees at the Bombardier Flight Test Center (“BFTC”) in Wichita, Kansas, operated by Learjet. The named plaintiffs alleged a pattern or practice of age discrimination in violation of the ADEA, i.e., specifically that defendants targeted non-union employees over the age of 40 for termination. Following the lawsuit’s initiation, and applying the “similarly situated” collective action standard incorporated by the ADEA from the Fair Labor Standards Act, plaintiffs sought conditional certification of a collective action under the traditionally “lenient” standard applied by the courts within the Tenth Circuit and others in evaluating certification of collective actions. Specifically, the plaintiffs sought and obtained conditional certification for a collective action consisting of non-union personnel employed since April 2, 2016 at the BFTC whose employment was terminated when they were over 40 years of age. After the dissemination of notice, additional plaintiffs opted in, with four remaining by the time the defendants moved for decertification.

Procedurally, the defendants moved to decertify the collective action after the conclusion of fact discovery.

The two named plaintiffs and four opt-ins all worked in the BFTC, were over the age of 40 at the time their employment ended, and were terminated for various reasons. One named plaintiff was terminated as a result of performance issues and a safety violation. The other named plaintiff was placed on a performance improvement plan for time management issues that resulted in his termination. While Learjet terminated one opt-in plaintiff for insubordination in connection with his failure to repay a tax payment reimbursement to the company, the three other opt-in plaintiffs were laid off as part of corporate reorganizations, with performance playing a role in some, but not all, layoff-related terminations.

The Court’s Decision

Applying the Tenth Circuit’s two-step approach for collective action certification, the Court moved from the “lenient standard” at the conditional certification stage to the “stricter” standard post-discovery to assess whether the plaintiffs were “similarly situated.” Id. at 9. The analysis to determine whether the members of the collective action were “similarly situated” to the named plaintiffs involved examining disparities in employment circumstances and available individual defenses, as well as procedural fairness and efficiency considerations.

The Court found the evidence of a discriminatory policy, predicated on an alleged statement about the company’s age composition, insufficient to establish a pattern or practice of discrimination. To establish an unlawful policy, plaintiffs relied on a single statement made by a director at a meeting in which he “drew an inverted triangle to represent a large number of older workers (at the top) and a small number of younger workers (at the bottom)” and allegedly stated that “the age balance was upside down” and that they “needed to reduce the age of the Company.” Id. at 3. The Court, however, determined that “no evidence” of a discriminatory policy existed other than the alleged statement. Notably, the Court highlighted the lack of documentation, meetings, or direct involvement by management in any discriminatory policy’s alleged development or implementation. Id. at 13. Furthermore, terminations affecting the named plaintiffs and opt-ins spanned three years and involved various decision-makers, and evidence demonstrated that the average age of BFTC employees and percentage of workers over the age of forty increased between 2015 and 2019. Id. at 8, 13.

The Court also considered the individual circumstances of the named plaintiffs’ and opt-ins’ terminations, noting significant differences in the reasons for termination and the involvement of different managers in these decisions. The Court credited defendants’ argument that individualized defenses required decertification, as some opt-in plaintiffs executed releases barring their ADEA claims, the named plaintiffs’ claims were limited by the scope of their charges of discrimination, and one opt-in failed to disclose claims against defendants in bankruptcy proceedings. Id. at 16. Though noting that the individualized evidence was “not onerous,” the Court opined that the diversity in employment circumstances and the presence of individualized defenses underscored the plaintiffs’ disparate situations, which counseled against the maintenance of a collective action. Id. at 16. Finally, the Court also found that the “lack of common representative evidence” and the “highly individualized” circumstances of each plaintiff threatened to confuse a jury by requiring separate mini trials, which was wholly inefficient. Id. at 17. Accordingly, the Court granted defendants’ motion to decertify.

Implications for Employers

This decision sends a strong message about the potential hurdles faced by plaintiffs in sustaining collective actions after fact discovery, particularly in pattern-or-practice ADEA cases. For employers, the ruling highlights the importance of meticulous record-keeping, clear performance management, and consistent application of termination policies to defend against collective action claims effectively.

Moreover, this decision showcases the strategic value of aggressively challenging collective action certification on the basis of individualized claims and defenses, thereby preventing the broad-brush grouping of distinct employment cases. Employers should also note the critical role of early, proactive legal strategies in managing and mitigating the risks associated with collective action litigation.

March 5, 2024March 5, 2024 by Class Action Defense

Investment Advisory Business And Executive Ordered By New York Federal Court To Pay Agreed-Upon Settlement Amount, Plus Interest After Ignoring Court Deadlines

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Maria Caceres-Boneau, and Gregory S. Slotnick

Duane Morris Takeaways: On February 29, 2024, Judge Andrew Carter of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Lee v. Grove Group Advisors LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20 Civ. 05937 S.D.N.Y. (Feb. 29, 2024), issued an order granting a motion to enforce a settlement agreement reached between the parties nearly three years after it was initially submitted for approval, and more than two years after the Court ultimately approved the agreement as fair and reasonable. The decision underscores the importance of a Court’s retention of jurisdiction over a case in order to enforce or otherwise apply the settlement of a case, and also serves as a reminder that employers and individual business executives who sign settlement agreements to end litigation should always be prepared to make all agreed-upon payments, or else risk the ire of a Judge, the Court’s enforcement of the agreement, and additional interest on the original settlement amount.

Case Background

According to the Complaint filed by the Plaintiff on July 30, 2020, Plaintiff began working on August 9, 2019 for the defendants – including an investment advisory company and its Chief Executive Officer/Co-Founder (together, “Defendants”) – as a “Manufacturing and Engineering Director” for which Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff an annual salary of $160,000. Complaint (“Compl.”) at ¶¶ 12, 21-22. Plaintiff claims that Defendants also agreed to provide him with fifteen (15) days of PTO per year. Id. at ¶ 23. According to Plaintiff, in January 2020, Defendants ceased paying him his wages, told him that they’d pay him “soon,” and after he continued to work for Defendants, in February 2020, Defendants sent him a letter stating that his last day of employment was February 13, 2020. Id. at ¶¶ 26-33. The letter also informed Plaintiff that Defendants owed him approximately $24,000 for the period from December 22, 2019 to February 13, 2020, that Defendants did not have the means to pay him at that time, but that they were making “every effort to raise money for the company in order to pay our liabilities, yours included.” Id. at ¶ 32.

Plaintiff alleges that on May 15, 2020, Defendants paid him only $3,846.15, and that Defendants did not pay him the balance of what they owed him despite Plaintiff trying to reach out to Defendants on numerous occasions in an attempt to get paid, the only reply from Defendants being “we will let you know when we get the funds to pay you.” Id. at ¶¶ 34-35. Plaintiff claimed entitlement to $20,153.87 in unpaid earned wages for work performed for Defendants, as well as sixty-four (64) hours of accrued, unused PTO valued at $4,923.07 – totaling $25,076.94. Id. at ¶¶ 36-38.

According to the Court Order, the parties reached agreement at mediation and submitted an initial proposed settlement agreement for Court approval on May 27, 2021, as required by Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015). Order at 1. On December 28, 2021, after the parties filed a revised agreement, the Court approved the agreement as fair and reasonable, and it provided for payment by Defendants of a settlement sum of $14,990 by January 11, 2022. Id. at 1-2. Critically, the Court retained jurisdiction over the case to hear any motion to enforce or otherwise apply the settlement. Id. The Order stated that Plaintiff now sought to enforce the agreement, and that the Court provided Defendants with multiple opportunities to respond to the motion to enforce, including a December 4, 2023 order to show cause as to why Plaintiff’s motion to enforce should not be deemed unopposed. Id.

The Court’s Decision

The Court determined that because the parties reached a binding and enforceable agreement, Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the agreement should be granted. Id. The order confirmed that to date, Defendants had not paid any of the settlement sum, and that after counsel for Defendants’ request to withdraw was granted by the Court, Plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the settlement on April 12, 2023. Id. at 2. Defendants also ignored the Court’s repeated warnings to obtain new counsel. Id. On June 5, 2023, the Court issued an order to show cause as to why the Plaintiff’s motion should not be treated as unopposed, and provided another follow-up to Defendants by way of a December 1, 2023 filing. Id. Defendants did not respond, and the Court noted that they have not made any filing on the docket since February 9, 2023. Id. at 2-3.

The Court set out the standard of review for settlement agreements, which it stated are interpreted according to general principles of contract law. Id. at 3. The Court found that when a judge determines a settlement agreement was in fact reached, the agreement is binding on the parties, and that the parties must be in agreement on all essential terms. Id. The order confirmed that once a settlement agreement is reached, it constitutes a binding and conclusive contract, and that the parties are bound to its terms even if they have a later change of heart. Id. at 4.

The Court stated that it may only vacate a stipulation of settlement upon a showing of good cause, such as fraud, collusion, mistake, duress, lack of capacity, or where the agreement is unconscionable, contrary to public policy, or so ambiguous that it indicates by its terms that the parties did not reach agreement. Id. at 5.

In this case, the Court found no such showing of good cause to vacate the agreement, since it was written and signed by the parties and approved by the judge. Id. In considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court ruled that Plaintiff established that the signed settlement agreement is enforceable. Id. at 6. As a result, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the agreement, as well as Plaintiff’s request for 9% interest per year from the date the funds became due (January 11, 2021) to the date the funds became owed (April 12, 2023 – the filing date of the motion to enforce settlement). Id. The Court calculated such interest to be $3,034.55, and ultimately held Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendants, individually, jointly and severally, the total amount of $18,024.55. Id.

Implications For Businesses

The Lee decision illustrates that under appropriate circumstances, such as the settlement of an unpaid wage claim providing for a judge to retain jurisdiction, a court is apt to grant motions to enforce a settlement agreement without hesitation (and also award interest on same). In this case, the Court provided Defendants with numerous opportunities to defend themselves and appear on the docket. However, Defendants’ silence spoke volumes, and the Court ultimately approved Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the valid agreement previously reached and submitted on the docket by the parties.

Businesses and their executives should always ensure their intent and unquestioned ability to make agreed-upon payments as part of any litigation settlement agreement (and to their employees), whether an unpaid wage claim filed on the docket for Court approval in the Second Circuit, or a private, confidential breach of contract claim. This is especially so when a Court retains jurisdiction over a filed matter to enforce any settlement agreement reached. Of course, employers should also make sure that they follow Court Orders and meet Court deadlines to a tee!