Author: Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Read Gerald's bio.
Posted on by Tyler Z. Zmick

Illinois Federal Court Dismisses Class Action Privacy Claims Involving Use Of Samsung’s “Gallery” App

By Tyler Zmick, Justin Donoho, and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Duane Morris Takeaways:  In G.T., et al. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al., No. 21-CV-4976, 2024 WL 3520026 (N.D. Ill. July 24, 2024), Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed claims brought under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”).  In doing so, Judge Jenkins acknowledged limitations on the types of conduct (and types of data) that can subject a company to liability under the statute.  The decision is welcome news for businesses that design, sell, or license technology yet do not control or store any “biometric” data that may be generated when customers use the technology.  The case also reflects the common sense notion that a data point does not qualify as a “biometric identifier” under the BIPA if it cannot be used to identify a specific person.  G.T. v. Samsung is required reading for corporate counsel facing privacy class action litigation.

Background

Plaintiffs — a group of Illinois residents who used Samsung smartphones and tablets — alleged that their respective devices came pre-installed with a “Gallery application” (the “App”) that can be used to organize users’ photos.  According to Plaintiffs, whenever an image is created on a Samsung device, the App automatically: (1) scans the image to search for faces using Samsung’s “proprietary facial recognition technology”; and (2) if it detects a face, the App analyzes the face’s “unique facial geometry” to create a “face template” (i.e., “a unique digital representation of the face”).  Id. at *2.  The App then organizes photos based on images with similar face templates, resulting in “pictures with a certain individual’s face [being] ‘stacked’ together on the App.”  Id.

Based on their use of the devices, Plaintiffs alleged that Samsung violated §§ 15(a) and 15(b) of the BIPA by: (1) failing to develop a written policy made available to the public establishing a retention policy and guidelines for destroying biometric data, and (2) collecting Plaintiffs’ biometric data without providing them with the requisite notice and obtaining their written consent.

Samsung moved to dismiss on two grounds, arguing that: (1) Plaintiffs did not allege that Samsung “possessed” or “collected” their biometric data because they did not claim the data ever left their devices; and (2) Plaintiffs failed to allege that data generated by the App qualifies as “biometric identifiers” or “biometric information” under the BIPA, because Samsung cannot use the data to identify Plaintiffs or others appearing in uploaded photos.

The Court’s Decision

The Court granted Samsung’s motion to dismiss on both grounds.

“Possession” And “Collection” Of Biometric Data

Regarding Samsung’s first argument, the Court began by explaining what it means for an entity to be “in possession of” biometric data under § 15(a) and to “collect” biometric data under § 15(b).  The Court observed that “possession” occurs when an entity exercises control over data or holds it at its disposal.  Regarding “collection,” the Court noted that the term “collect,” and the other verbs used in § 15(b) (“capture, purchase, receive through trade, or otherwise obtain”), all refer to an entity taking an “active step” to gain control of biometric data.

The Court proceeded to consider Plaintiffs’ contention that Samsung was “in possession of” their biometrics because Samsung controls the proprietary software used to operate the App.  The Court sided with Samsung, however, concluding that Plaintiffs failed to allege “possession” (and thus failed to state a § 15(a) claim) because they did not allege that Samsung can access the data (as opposed to the technology Samsung employs).  Id. at *9 (“Samsung controls the App and its technology, but it does not follow that this control gives Samsung dominion over the Biometrics generated from the App, and plaintiffs have not alleged Samsung receives (or can receive) such data.”).

As for § 15(b), the Court rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that Samsung took an “active step” to “collect” their biometrics by designing the App to “automatically harvest[] biometric data from every photo stored on the Device.”  Id. at *11.  The Court determined that Plaintiffs’ argument failed for the same reason their § 15(a) “possession” argument failed.  Id. at *11-12 (“Plaintiffs’ argument again conflates technology with Biometrics. . . . Plaintiffs do not argue that Samsung possesses the Data or took any active steps to collect it.  Rather, the active step according to Plaintiffs is the creation of the technology.”).

“Biometric Identifiers” And “Biometric Information”

The Court next turned to Samsung’s second argument for dismissal – namely, that Plaintiffs failed to allege that data generated by the App is “biometric” under the BIPA because Samsung could not use it to identify Plaintiffs (or others appearing in uploaded photos).

In opposing this argument, Plaintiffs asserted that: (1) the “App scans facial geometry, which is an explicitly enumerated biometric identifier”; and (2) the “mathematical representations of face templates” stored through the App constitute “biometric information” (i.e., information “based on” scans of Plaintiffs’ “facial geometry”).  Id. at *13.

The Court ruled that “Samsung has the better argument,” holding that Plaintiffs’ claims failed because Plaintiffs did not allege that Samsung can use data generated through the App to identify specific people.  Id. at *15.  The Court acknowledged that cases are split “on whether a plaintiff must allege a biometric identifier can identify a particular individual, or if it is sufficient to allege the defendant merely scanned, for example, the plaintiff’s face or retina.”  Id. at *13.  After employing relevant principles of statutory interpretation, the Court sided with the cases in the former category and opined that “the plain meaning of ‘identifier,’ combined with the BIPA’s purpose, demonstrates that only those scans that can identify an individual qualify.”  Id. at *15.

Turning to the facts alleged in the Complaint, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs failed to state claims under the BIPA because the data generated by the App does not amount to “biometric identifiers” or “biometric information” simply because the data can be used to identify and group the unique faces of unnamed people.  In other words, biometric information must be capable of recognizing an individual’s identity – “not simply an individual’s feature.”  Id. at *17; see also id. at *18 (noting that Plaintiffs claimed only that the App groups unidentified faces together, and that it is the device user who can add names or other identifying information to the faces).

Implications Of The Decision

G.T. v. Samsung is one of several recent decisions grappling with key questions surrounding the BIPA, including questions as to: (1) when an entity engages in conduct that rises to the level of “possession” or “collection” of biometrics; and (2) what data points qualify (and do not qualify) as “biometric identifiers” and “biometric information” such that they are subject to regulation under the statute.

Regarding the first question, the Samsung case reflects the developing majority position among courts – i.e., a company is not “in possession of,” and has not “collected,” data that it does not actually receive or access, even if it created and controlled the technology that generated the allegedly biometric data.

As for the second question, the Court’s decision in Samsung complements the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Zellmer v. Meta Platforms, Inc., where it held that a “biometric identifier” must be capable of identifying a specific person.  See Zellmer v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 104 F.4th 1117, 1124 (9th Cir. 2024) (“Reading the statute as a whole, it makes sense to impose a similar requirement on ‘biometric identifier,’ particularly because the ability to identify did not need to be spelled out in that term — it was readily apparent from the use of ‘identifier.’”).  Courts have not uniformly endorsed this reading, however, and parties will likely continue litigating the issue unless and until the Illinois Supreme Court provides the final word on what counts as a “biometric identifier” and “biometric information.”

Posted on by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Ninth Circuit Broadly Applies The FAA’s Transportation Worker Exemption To Fueling Technicians To Green Light Their Class Action And Side-Step Arbitration

By Eden E. Anderson, Rebecca S. Bjork, and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Duane Morris Takeaways:  On July 19, 2024, in Lopez v. Aircraft Service International, Inc., Case No. 23-55015 (9th Cir. July 19, 2024), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the Federal Arbitration Act’s (FAA) transportation worker exemption applies to an airplane fueling technician.  Even though the technician had no hands-on contacts with goods, the Ninth Circuit held that was not required because fuel is necessary to flying the plane that holds the goods.  The decision is yet another from the Ninth Circuit broadly applying the FAA’s transportation worker exemption, in spite of multiple recent decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court directing narrow that loop hole to mandatory arbitration.  The Lopez decision presents an obstacle for employers seeking to enforce arbitration agreements and class action waivers within the Ninth Circuit, thereby opening the door to arguments that workers who do not even handle goods in the stream of commerce are exempt from arbitration if their work somehow supports the mechanism by which the goods travel.

Case Background

Danny Lopez worked as a fueling technician at Los Angeles International Airport.  He added fuel to airplanes.  After Lopez filed a wage & hour class action against his employer, the employer moved to compel arbitration.  The district court denied the motion, concluding that Lopez was an exempt transportation worker because he was directly involved in the flow of goods in interstate or foreign commerce.  It reasoned that, although Lopez did not handle goods in commerce, he was directly involved in the maintenance of the means by which the goods were transported.  The employer appealed on the grounds that the FAA’s transportation worker exemption is to be narrowly construed and that Lopez did not have any hands-on contact with goods and direct participation in their movement.

The Ninth Circuit’s Decision

The Ninth Circuit began its analysis by mentioning the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 596 U.S. 450 (2022).  In Saxon, the U.S. Supreme Court instructed that the transportation worker exemption is to be narrowly construed and does not turn on the industry within which the work is performed.  Saxon held that airline ramp agents are nonetheless transportation workers exempt from the FAA because, in loading and unloading cargo onto airplanes, ramp agents play a “direct and necessary role in the free flow of goods across borders” and are “actively engaged in the transportation of those goods across via the channels of foreign or interstate commerce.” Id. at 458.  Perceiving that the transportation worker exemption continued to be misapplied by lower courts, the U.S. Supreme Court repeated this same guidance this year in Bissonnette v. Le Page Bakeries Park St., LLC, 601 U.S. 246 (2024), and cautioned that the exemption should not be applied broadly to all workers who load and unload goods as they pass through the stream of interstate commerce.

While mentioning this recent controlling authority, the Ninth Circuit harkened back to its 2020 analysis of the transportation worker exemption in Rittman v. Amazon.com, Inc., 971 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2004), deeming it consistent with Saxon and Bissonnette.  In Rittman, the Ninth Circuit held that Amazon delivery drivers making local, last mile deliveries of products from Amazon warehouses to customers’ homes were exempt transportation workers engaged in interstate or foreign commerce.  Applying “the analytical approach applied in Rittman,” the Ninth Circuit  concluded that Lopez was an exempt transportation worker because his fueling of airplanes was a “vital component” of the plane’s ability to fly.  Id. at 12.

Implications Of The Decision

The Lopez decision is yet another from the Ninth Circuit broadly applying the FAA’s transportation worker exemption, in spite of multiple recent decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court directing narrow interpretation.  The Lopez decision opens the door to arguments that workers who do not even handle goods in the stream of commerce are exempt from arbitration if their work somehow supports the mechanism by which the goods travel.

 

Posted on by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Minnesota Federal Court Imposes $100 Per Day Civil Contempt Sanctions For Company’s Continued Failure To Comply With An EEOC Subpoena

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and George J. Schaller

Duane Morris Takeaways: In EEOC v. Cambridge Transportation., Inc., No. 0:23-MC-00101, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118857 (D. Minn. July 8, 2024), Judge Nancy E. Brasel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota accepted U.S. Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster’s Report and Recommendation (see EEOC v. Cambridge Transportation, Inc., No. 0:23-MC-00101, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121147 (D. Minn. June 10, 2024)) to impose civil contempt sanctions against Cambridge Transportation Inc. for its failure to comply with an EEOC subpoena.  The EEOC sought documents in its administrative charge investigation into Title VII discrimination allegations on behalf of a former Cambridge Transportation, Inc. worker. 

The Court ordered payment to the EEOC of $100 per day for each day Cambridge Transportation, Inc. remains out of compliance beginning on June 7, 2024.  Over one month later, Cambridge remains out of compliance based on the docket.  This ruling is a warning admonisiton for employers facing EEOC subpoenas and the seriousness for any alleged non-compliance with the Commission’s investigation process.

Case Background

On October 19, 2023, the EEOC petitioned for an Application for and Order to Show Cause Why Administrative Subpoena Should Not Be Enforced (the “Application”) against Respondent Cambridge Transportation, Inc. (“Cambridge”).  (See United States EEOC v. Cambridge Transp., Inc., No. 0:23-MC-00101, ECF No. 1.)  The EEOC’s subpoena duces tecum sought information from Cambridge regarding a charge of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  (See id.)  In the underlying charge, Charging Party Becky Blechinger alleged that Cambridge “discriminated against her on the bases of her sex (female), race (white), national origin (United States) and disability by paying a higher rate of compensation to men of Somalian national origin,” who worked at Cambridge.  (See id., ECF No. 2, at 2.)

On November 1, 2023, the Court issued an order to show cause for the EEOC’s Application.  (See id., ECF No. 7.)  On November 21, 2023, the EEOC provided a status report that reflected it had not effectuated service on Cambridge.  (See id., ECF No. 9)

On December 19, 2023, the EEOC filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings.  (See id., ECF No. 12.)  Therein, the EEOC stated Cambridge responded and acknowledged receipt of the Court’s order to show cause and further indicated that Cambridge intended to produce the documents identified in the EEOC’s Application by December 26, 2023.  (See id.)  The following day the Court stayed the case.  (See id., ECF No. 13.)

On January 25, 2024, the EEOC filed another status report with a request due to Cambridge’s failure to comply with the subpoena. Thereafter, the Court entered an order for hearing on the EEOC’s Application.  (See id., ECF Nos. 14 & 15.)  On February 22, 2024, Cambridge attended the hearing via telephone through its non-attorney registered agent.  (See id., ECF No. 18.)

On February 27, 2024, the Court granted the EEOC’s Application and determined that Cambridge must comply with the subpoena or otherwise the Court may find Cambridge in civil contempt and impose a daily fine for each day Cambridge remains out of compliance.  (See id., ECF No. 20.)

On May 14, 2024, the EEOC provided a status report to the Court and reiterated that Cambridge failed to comply with the subpoena and requested the Court impose a civil fine of $800 per day, for each day past May 14, 2024, that Cambridge remains non-compliant.  (See id., ECF No. 23.)

On May 20, 2024, the Court ordered a hearing on the EEOC’s Application and required Cambridge to retain counsel to enter an appearance on its behalf to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to comply with the Court’s February 27 order.  (See id., ECF No. 25.)  On June 7, 2024, the hearing occurred and Cambridge did not appear.  (See id., ECF No. 27.)

The Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation and the District Court Judge’s Finding

On June 10, 2024, Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued his Report and Recommendation.  (See United States EEOC v. Cambridge Transp., Inc., No. 0:23-MC-00101, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121147 (D. Minn. June 10, 2024).  The report detailed the continued failures of Cambridge to respond to the Agency’s subpoena and efforts to enforce its subpoena.  (See id., at *1-6.)

The Court opined Cambridge had “ample time to retain counsel, for its alleged counsel to enter an appearance and to ensure its counsel either would be available to attend the show cause hearing or move to reschedule it” and “despite having months,” it had “faile[d] to do so and made no efforts to explain that failure or seek more time to comply.”  (See id., at *5.)  As a result, the Court found Cambridge waived all of its defenses to the EEOC’s motion and request for sanctions.  (See id., at *5-6.)

The Court reiterated its authority that it “may hold a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena or an order related to it.”  (See id, at *6) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(g).)  The Court found Cambridge’s continued non-compliance with the subpoena warranted contempt and imposition of monetary sanctions.  (See id.)  The Court’s recommendation was not made “lightly, but Cambridge’s intransigent refusal to cooperate” left the Court with few other options.  (See id.)

On the requested $800 per day fine from the EEOC, the Court reasoned at this stage that it was not justified at this stage.  (See id.)  The Court instead recommended an initial daily fine of “$100 per day for each day Cambridge remains noncompliant with the subpoena beginning June 7, 2024, the date of the show cause hearing, and continuing until Cambridge satisfactorily complies.”  (See id., at *7.)  The Court further held “additional sanctions and penalties may be warranted in the future” if Cambridge’s failure to comply continues.  (See id.)

The District Court Judge found no clear error in the Magistrate Judge Foster’s recommendation and report.  (United States EEOC v. Cambridge Transp., Inc., No. 0:23-MC-00101, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118857, at * 1 (D. Minn. July 8, 2024).)  In so holding, the Court adopted the report in full, and found Cambridge in civil contempt and ordered payment of $100 per day for each day Cambridge remains out of compliance with the EEOC’s subpoena, beginning on June 7, 2024.  (Id.)  The Court left open whether any additional sanctions and penalties may apply.

Implications For Employers

This recommendation and report, and resulting Court order, illustrates the length to which the EEOC will go to enforce its investigation of allegations of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Companies should recognize the EEOC’s enforcement efforts have teeth, and heed the Court’s response that imposed a daily fine based on total non-compliance.

Companies should take measures to ensure compliance with any EEOC request for information and respond accordingly, and promptly, to any investigation including subpoena requests.  Otherwise, Companies may find themselves footing a $100 bill for every day of non-compliance and possibly expose themselves to further civil contempt sanctions.

Posted on by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

DMCAR Mid-Year Review – 2024/2025: FLSA Conditional Certifications Remain High, But So Far In 2024 Courts Are Granting Less Class Certification Motions Overall Compared To 2023


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

Duane Morris Takeaway: In the first half of 2024, across all major types of class actions, courts issued rulings on 203 motions to grant or deny class certification, and plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining or maintaining certification in 138 rulings, with an overall success rate of 68%. In contrast, in 2023, the plaintiffs’ class action bar succeeded in certifying class actions at a higher rate. Across all major types of class actions, courts issued rulings last year on 451 motions to grant or to deny class certification. Of these, plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining or maintaining certification in 324 rulings, an overall success rate of 72%. In 2022, by comparison, courts issued rulings on 335 motions to grant or to deny class certification, and plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining or maintaining certification in 247 rulings, an overall success rate of nearly 74%.

In 2024, the number of motions that courts considered varied significantly by subject matter area, and the number of rulings varied across substantive areas.

The following list summarizes the results in each of ten key areas of class action litigation:

WARN – 100% granted / 0% denied (1 of 1 granted / 0 of 1 denied)
FLSA / Wage & Hour (Conditional Certification) – 84% granted / 16% denied (68 of 81 granted / 13 of 81 denied)
Antitrust – 80% granted / 20% denied (8 of 10 granted / 2 of 10 denied)
FCRA / FDCPA – 75% granted / 25% denied (3 of 4 granted / 1 of 4 denied)
Securities Fraud – 67% granted / 33% denied (10 of 15 granted / 5 of 15 denied)
ERISA – 67% granted / 33% denied (10 of 15 granted / 5 of 15 denied)
Discrimination – 60% granted / 40% denied (6 of 10 granted / 4 of 10 denied)
Privacy – 60% granted / 40% denied (3 of 5 granted / 2 of 5 denied)
FLSA / Wage & Hour (Decertification) – 33% granted / 67% denied (3 of 9 granted / 6 of 9 denied)
Civil Rights – 48% granted / 52% denied (10 of 21 granted / 11 of 21 denied)
Consumer Fraud – 48% granted / 52% denied (12 of 25 granted / 13 of 25 denied)
Data Breach – 33% granted / 67% denied (1 of 3 granted / 2 of 3 denied)
Products Liability / Mass Torts – 0% granted / 100% denied (0 of 1 granted / 1 of 1 denied)
TCPA – 0% granted / 100% denied (0 of 3 granted / 3 of 3 denied).

The plaintiffs’ class action bar obtained the highest rates of success in WARN, wage & hour, antitrust, and FCRA class actions. There has only been one WARN certification ruling in 2024, which was granted by the court for a 100% success rate. In wage & hour litigation, plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining orders certifying classes and/or collective actions in 68 of 81 rulings issued during 2024, a success rate of 84%. In cases alleging antitrust violations, plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining orders certifying classes in 8 of 10 rulings, for a success rate of 80%. And in cases alleging FCRA violations, plaintiffs managed to obtain class certification rulings in 3 of 4 rulings issued during 2024, a success rate of 75%.

Courts Issued More Rulings In FLSA Collective Actions and Wage & Hour Class Actions Than In Any Other Areas Of Law

For the first half of calendar year 2024, courts again issued more certification rulings in FLSA collective actions and wage & hour class actions than in other types of cases. Plaintiffs historically have been able to obtain conditional certification of FLSA collective actions at a high rate, which surely has contributed to the number of filings in this area.

From January 1 to July 1, 2024, courts considered more motions for certification in FLSA matters than in any other substantive area. Overall, courts issued 90 rulings. Of these, 81 addressed first-stage motions for conditional certification of collective actions under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and 9 addressed second-stage motions for decertification of collective actions. Of the 81 rulings that courts issued on motions for conditional certification, 68 rulings favored plaintiffs, for a success rate of nearly 84%.

These numbers are higher than the numbers observed in 2023, during which courts issued 183 rulings. Of these, 165 addressed first-stage motions for conditional certification of collective actions under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and 18 addressed second-stage motions for decertification of collective actions. Of the 167 rulings that courts issued on motions for conditional certification, 125 rulings favored plaintiffs, for a success rate of nearly 75%.

At the decertification stage, courts generally have conducted a closer examination of the evidence and, as a result, defendants historically have enjoyed an equal if not higher rate of success on these second-stage motions as compared to plaintiffs.

The results so far in 2024 have not supported that typical success. Of the 9 rulings that courts issued on motions for decertification of collective actions, only 3 rulings favored defendants, for a lower success rate of 33%.

An analysis of the rulings demonstrates that a disproportionate number emanated from traditionally pro-plaintiff jurisdictions, including the judicial districts within the Second Circuit (16 decisions) and Ninth Circuit (10 decisions), which include New York and California, respectively.

Takeaways From The Numbers Midway Through 2024

Notable this year at the halfway point, there have been a very small number of rulings emanating from the Fifth and Sixth Circuits (4 and 7 decisions, respectfully), which could account for the high overall conditional certification rate in the wage & hour space, given that these two circuits have imposed new, stricter standards for conditional certification. Plaintiffs likely are shifting their case filings away from these two circuits toward jurisdictions with more lenient, more plaintiff-friendly standards for conditional certification.

The numbers no doubt flow from the different standards and approaches that courts in different federal circuits take in evaluating motions for conditional certification and decertification and, in turn, the likelihood of plaintiffs’ success on such motions. If more courts join the Fifth and Sixth Circuits in abandoning the traditional two-step certification process under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and thereby increase the time and expense of gaining a conditional certification order, it may lead to a reshuffling of the deck in terms of where plaintiffs file their cases and the types of claims they pursue.

We will continue to track class certification trends in 2024 and will report on final numbers in the Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2025, which will be published in the first week of January. Stay tuned!

Posted on by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2024/2025: Mid-Year Class Action Settlement Report & Analysis

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

Duane Morris Takeaways: Corporate defendants saw unprecedented settlement numbers across all areas of class action litigation in 2022 and 2023, and halfway through 2024, settlement numbers remain robust. The cumulative value of the top ten settlements across all substantive areas of class action litigation hit near record highs in 2023, second only to the settlement numbers observed in 2022. When the numbers for 2022 and 2023 are combined, the totals signal that corporate defendants have entered a new era of heightened risks and higher stakes in the valuation of class actions. On an aggregate basis, across all areas of litigation, class actions and government enforcement lawsuits garnered more than $51.4 billion in settlements in 2023, almost as high as the record-setting $66 billion in 2022. When combined, the two-year settlement total eclipses any other two-year period in the history of American jurisprudence.

As a prelude to the Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2025, this post reports on our analysis of class action settlements through the first half of 2024. The data shows that for the period of January 1 to June 30, 2024, the current year is on pace with the numbers of the previous two years. As of the end of the first half of 2024, the aggregate settlement total across all areas of class action litigation and government enforcement lawsuits is $22.9 billion (in accounting for the top 5 settlements in the various substantive areas of law). It is anticipated that these numbers will increase across the board by the end of the year and when measured by the top 10 settlements in each category.

More Billion Dollar Class Action Settlements

At the mid-way point of 2024, there are four settlements over the billion-dollar mark. In 2023, parties resolved 14 class actions for $1 billion or more in settlements, making 24 billion-dollar settlements in the last two years. Reminiscent of the Big Tobacco settlements nearly two decades ago, 2022 and 2023 marked the most extensive set of billion-dollar class action settlements and transfer of wealth in the history of the American court system.

Class action settlements totaled $66 billion in 2023, $51.4 billion in 2023, and $22.9 billion in 2024 so far.

The Scorecard On Leading Class Actions Settlements Halfway Through 2024

The plaintiffs’ class action bar has scored rich settlements thus far in 2024 in virtually every area of class action litigation.

[Click image to enlarge] The top 5 class action settlement totals in each practice area.
The following list shows the totals of the top 5 settlements at the mid-year point in 2024 in key areas of class action litigation:

$14.45 Billion – Products liability/mass tort class actions
$4.17 Billion – Antitrust class actions
$2.05 Billion – Securities fraud class actions
$628 Million – Consumer fraud class actions
$388.95 Million – Data breach class actions
$331.5 Million – Privacy class actions
$288 Million – ERISA class actions
$157.15 Million – Wage & hour class and collective actions
$147 Million – Discrimination class actions
$101.3 Million – Labor class actions
$67.7 Million – Government enforcement actions
$58.8 Million – Civil rights class actions
$49.69 Million – TCPA class actions
$24.96 Million – Fair Credit Reporting Act class actions

The high dollar settlements of the past two years suggested that the plaintiffs’ bar would continue to be equally, if not more aggressive, with their case filings and settlement positions. From the 2024 data, it certainly looks to be the case as we end the first half of the year.

The data points in each category are set out in the following charts.

Top Class & Collective Action Litigation Settlements In 2024

Top Antitrust Class Action Settlements In 2024

The top 10 antitrust class action settlements totaled $11.74 billion in 2023, and $3.72 billion in 2022.
    1. $2.77 billion – In Re College Athlete NIL Litigation, Case No. 20-CV-3919 (N.D. Cal. May 23, 2024) (settlement agreement reached to resolve claims with former college athletes who filed an antitrust class action seeking compensation allegedly denied to them for decades before the Supreme Court overturned the NCAA’s compensation ban)..
    2. $418 million – Burnett, et al. v. the National Association of Realtors, Case No. 19-CV-332, Gibson, et al. v. National Association of Realtors, Case No.  23-CV-788, and Umpa, et al. v. The National Association of Realtors, Case No. 23-CV-945 (W.D. Mo. Mar. 15, 2024) and Moehrl, et al. v. The National Association of Realtors, Case No. 19-CV-1610 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 23, 2024) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims that broker commission rules caused home sellers across the country to pay inflated fees).
    3. $385 million – In Re Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride and Naloxone) Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 13-MD-2445 (E.D. Penn. Feb. 27, 2024) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims brought by states, insurers and buyers of a new dissolvable strip version of Suboxone to the market, encouraging the move from tablets to strips by misrepresenting to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that the tablets posed a risk to children of accidental consumption).
    4. $335 million – Le, et al. v. Zuffa LLC, Case No. 15-CV-1045 (D. Nev. Mar. Mar. 20, 2024) (preliminary settlement approval sought in a class action to resolve claims that fighters’ wages were suppressed by up to $1.6 billion).
    5. $265 million – In Re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 16-MD-2724 (E.D. Penn. June 26, 2024) (preliminary settlement approval granted for a class action to resolve claims by direct purchasers, end-payors and states alleging that multiple makers of generic drugs conspired to keep the prices on their products high, in violation of state laws and the federal Sherman Act).

Top Civil Rights Class Action Settlements In 2024

The top 10 civil rights class action settlements totaled $643.15 million in 2023, and $1.31 billion in 2022.
    1.  $17.5 million – Clark, et al. v. City Of New York, Case No. 18 Civ. 2334 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2024) (settlement approval sought in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the city policy department’s policy requiring all arrested individuals to have their photograph taken without a head covering violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act).
    2. $13.7 million – Sow, et al. v. New York, Case No. 21 Civ. 533, (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2024) (final settlement approval granted for a class action resolving claims by individuals who were arrested or arrested and subjected to force by the New York City Police Department during protests in 2020 following the murder of George Floyd).
    3. $12.8 million – In Re Chiquita Brands International Inc., Alien Tort Statute And Shareholders Derivative Litigation, Case No. 08-MD-1916 (S.D. Fla. June 24, 2024) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the company funded Colombian paramilitary groups leading to the deaths of over 2,500 victims.
    4. $10 million – Adberg, et al. v City Of Seattle, Case No. 20-2-14351-1 (Wash. Super. Ct. Jan. 30, 2024) (settlement reached to end a lawsuit brought by more than 50 protesters who say they were brutalized by its police force during Black Lives Matter demonstrations in the summer of 2020).
    5. $4.8 million – Students For Fair Admissions, Inc., et al. v. University Of North Carolina, Case No. 14-CV-954 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 29, 2024) (the University of North Carolina agreed to cover the fees and expenses of a group founded by affirmative action advocates that won a U.S. Supreme Court challenge to the school’s consideration of race in student admissions).

Top Consumer Fraud Class Action Settlements In 2024

The top 10 consumer fraud class action settlements totaled $3.29 billion in 2023, and $8.596 billion in 2022.
    1. $150 million – In Re Chevrolet Bolt EV Battery Litigation, Case No. 20-CV-13256 (E.D. Mich. May 16, 2024) (preliminary settlement approval sought in a class action to resolve claims against General Motors LLC and LG units over alleged battery which allegedly make cars prone to overheating and fires).
    2. $145 million – In Re Kia Hyundai Vehicle Theft Marketing, Sales Practices, And Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 22-ML-3052 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2024) (final settlement approval sought in a class action resolving claims that that consumers were left vulnerable to theft and damage due to vehicles being improperly manufactured with design flaws).
    3. $125 million – National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al. v. United States, Case No. 16-CV-745 (D.D.C. Mar. 20, 204) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action resolving claims challenging the legality of “excessive” PACER fees).
    4. $108 million – Elder, et al. v. Reliance Worldwide Corp., Case No. 20-CV-1596 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 23, 2024) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the defendants made and sold water heater connector hoses with defective rubber linings).
    5. $100 million – Esposito, et al. v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Case No. MID-L-6360-23 (N.J. Super. Apr. 26, 2024) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims that the company misled its customers by not disclosing certain fees in its postpaid wireless service plans).

Top Data Breach Class Action Settlements In 2024

The top 10 data breach class action settlements totaled $515.75 million in 2023, and $719.21 million in 2022.
    1. $350 million – In Re Alphabet Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 18-CV-6245 (N.D. Cal Apr. 9, 2024) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action alleging that a software glitch led to a data breach in which Google+ users’ personal data was exposed for three years).
    2. $15 million – Salinas, et al. v. Block Inc., Case No. 22-CV-4823 (N.D. Cal. June 3, 2024) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims that a December 2021 data breach at the companies exposed personally identifiable information, account numbers and trading activity of 8.2 million people).
    3. $8.7 million – Sherwood, et al. v. Horizon Actuarial Services LLC, Case No. 22-CV-1495 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 2, 2024) (final settlement approval granted for a class action to resolve claims that employer benefit plan members’ sensitive data was exposed in a massive breach at a consulting company).
    4. $8 million – In Re Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 23-CV-4089 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2024) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims brought by clients of a law firm alleging their personal information was compromised in a March 2023 data breach of some of the firm’s client data).
    5. $7.25 million – In Re Lincare Holdings Inc. Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 22-CV-1472 (M.D. Fla. June 24, 2024) (final settlement approval granted for a class action to resolve claims that the company failed to protect consumers from a 2021 data breach).

Top Discrimination Class Action Settlements In 2024

The top 10 discrimination class action settlements totaled $762.2 million in 2023, and $597 million in 2022.
    1. $54 million – California Civil Rights Department v. Activision Blizzard Inc., Case No. 21STCV26571 (Cal. Super. Jan. 17, 2024) (consent decree entered for an action to resolve claims that the company engaged in gender discrimination, pay inequities, and fostered a culture of sexual harassment in the workplace).
    2. $30 million – Employees’ Retirement System Of Rhode Island v. Paul Marciano, et al., Case No. 2022-0839 (Del. Chan. Jan. 4, 2024) (final settlement approval granted for a class action to resolve claims of decades of alleged sexual misconduct by one of the company’s co-founders).
    3. $25 million – Jewett, et al. v. Oracle America Inc., Case No. 17-CIV-02669 (Cal. Super. Ct. Feb. 11, 2024) (preliminary settlement agreement sought in a class action to resolve claims that female employees were paid less than male employees).
    4. $20 million – Council, et al. v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner, Case No. 24-CV-534 (M.D. Fla. May 24, 2024) (preliminary settlement approval sought in a class action to resolve claims alleging discrimination and retaliation against a proposed class of nearly 1,400 Black financial advisers who alleged they received less pay and promotions compared to their white counterparts).
    5. $18 million – Forsyth, et al. v. HP Inc., Case No. 16-CV-4775 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2024) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the company unlawfully pushed out hundreds of older workers as part of a workforce reduction plan in violation of the ADEA).

Top EEOC / Government Enforcement Class Action Settlements In 2024

The top 10 EEOC / government enforcement class action settlements totaled $263.58 million in 2023, and $404.5 million in 2022.
    1. $16.5 million – In The Matter Of Avast Ltd., Case No. 202-3033 (FTC Jan. 19, 2024) (consent decree entered following a Federal Trade Commission lawsuit alleging that the company sold personal information to more than 100 third parties despite promising to protect consumers from online tracking).
    2. $16 million – U.S. Department Of Labor v.  Disaster Management Group LLC (DOL Jan. 24, 2024) (consent order entered following investigations into 62 government subcontractors hired to construct temporary housing and provide services to Afghan refugees at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey).
    3. $15 million – California Civil Rights Department v. Snap Inc. (Cal. Super. Ct. June 18, 2024) (consent order entered following an investigation into the company’s hiring and pay practices were discriminatory, finding the company failed to ensure women were treated equally, resulting in a glass ceiling for pay and promotions, sexual harassment and retaliation when female workers spoke up).
    4. $11.5 million – Washington Department Of Labor & Industries v. Boeing (May 24, 2024) (the parties entered into a compliance agreement following an investigation by the agency after it received four complaints in November 2022 from workers who were performing aircraft maintenance overseas, and found that Boeing had not paid or accounted for all overtime and for paid sick leave for the additional time going to worksites while out of town).
    5. $8.7 million – EEOC v. DHL Express (USA) Inc., Case No. 10-CV-6139 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 24, 2024) (consent decree entered resolving a lawsuit filed alleging that the company gave Black workers more difficult and dangerous work assignments than white employees).

Top ERISA Class Action Settlements In 2024

The top 10 ERISA class action settlements totaled $580.5 million in 2023, and $399.6 million in 2022.
    1. $169 million – Electrical Welfare Trust Fund, et al. v. United States, Case No. 19-CV-353, (Fed. Claims Ct. May 16, 2024) (final settlement approval granted in a class action alleging that the government illegally exacted certain contributions from SISAs under it for benefit year 2014).
    2. $61 million – In Re GE ERISA Litigation, Case No. 17-CV-12123 (D. Mass. Mar. 7, 2024) (final settlement approval granted in consolidated class actions alleging that the company violated the ERISA by directing employee retirement savings into underperforming GE Asset Management funds to generate fees for the subsidiary before it was sold).
    3. $20 million – Durnack, et al. v. Retirement Plan Committee Of Talen Energy Corp., Case No. 20-CV-5975 (E.D. Penn. June 4, 2024) (final settlement approval granted for a class action resolving claims from employees alleging that that they were owed early retirement pension benefits and pension supplements due to a change in control).
    4. $19 million – Krohnengold, et al. v. New York Life Insurance Co., Case NO. 21-CV-1778 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2024) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the company unlawfully kept underperforming proprietary investment options in two employee retirement plans).
    5. $19 million – Colon, et al. v. Johnson, Case No. 22-CV-888 (M.D. Fla. June 10, 2024) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the company and executives enacted a scheme that diverted workers’ retirement benefits to shell companies and private equity firm Palm Beach Capital).

Top FCRA, FDPCA, And FACTA Class Action Settlements In 2024

The top 10 FCRA, FDPCA, and FACTA class action settlements totaled $100.15 million in 2023, and $210.11 million in 2022.
    1. $9.75 million – Sullen, et al. v. Vivint, Inc.,Case No. 01-CV-2023-903893 (Ala. Cir. Ct. Apr. 23, 2024) (final settlement approval granted in a class action alleging that the company accessed credit information in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and created Vivint accounts without authorization).
    2. $6.76 million – Martinez, et al. v. Avantus LLC, Case No. 20-CV-1772 (D. Conn. Feb. 27, 2024) (final settlement approval granted in a class action alleging that the company violated federal law by including inaccurate information on mortgage borrowers’ credit reports).
    3. $5.7 million – Steinberg, et al. v. Corelogic,Case No. 22-CV-498 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2024) (final settlement approval granted in a class action lawsuit to resolve claims that the company violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act by listing consumers as deceased on credit reports when they were actually alive).
    4. $1.87 million – Parker, et al. v. The Salvation Army, Case No. 20-CV-4787 (Cal. Super. Ct. Mar. 20, 2024) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims to resolve claims the company  failed to comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) when procuring job applicant background checks for employment applicants.
    5. $877,000 – McKey, et al. v. TenantReports.com LLC, Case No. 22-CV-1908-GJP (E.D. Penn. Feb. 27, 2024) (final settlement approval granted in a class action lawsuit to resolve claims that the company prepared consumer background reports that included outdated criminal non-conviction information).

Top FLSA / Wage & Hour Class And Collective Settlements In 2024

The top 10 FLSA / wage & hour class and collective action settlements totaled $742.5 million in 2023, and $574.55 million in 2022.
    1. $72.5 million – Utne, et al. v. Home Depot USA Inc., Case No. 16-CV-1854 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2024) (final settlement approval granted for a class action to resolve claims that the company failed to pay hourly wages, pay final wages on time, and provide accurate written wages).
    2. $38 million – In The Matter Of The Investigation Of Letitia James, Attorney General Of The State Of New York Of Lyft Inc., AOD No. 23-041 (AG Labor Bureau Nov. 30, 2024) (the New York Attorney General took legal action against Lyft, claiming the ride-booking company withheld wages from drivers by deducting taxes and fees from their pay instead of having passengers pay those expenses and prevented drivers from receiving the benefits they were entitled to under New York law).
    3. $16.65 million – Goldthorpe, et al. v. Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd., Case No. 17-CV-3233 (N.D. Cal. June 20, 2024) (preliminary settlement approval sought in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the airline violated state labor laws governing meal and rest periods, overtime and reserve duty pay).
    4. $16 million – Oman, et al. v. Delta Air Lines Inc., Case No. 15-CV-131 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2024) (preliminary settlement approval sought in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the company failed to provide accurate wage statements in violation of California Labor Law).
    5. $14 million – Bolding, et al. v. Banner Bank, Case No. 17-CV-601 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 8, 2024)(final settlement approval sought in a class and collective action to resolve claims that the company misclassified mortgage loan officers as exempt employees and thereby failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of federal and state wage & hour laws).

Top Labor Class Action Settlements In 2024

The top 10 labor class action settlements totaled $129.67 million in 2023.
    1. $55 million – Saunders, et al. v. State of Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency, Case No. 22-000007-MM (Mich. Cl. Ct. Apr. 16, 2024) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims that unemployment benefits were improperly clawed back without notice during the COVID-19 pandemic)
    2. $20 million – In Re International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Case No. 23-BK-30662 (N.D. Cal. Bankr. Feb. 22, 2024) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the union of engaging in an unlawful boycott of the company during a labor dispute).
    3. $20 million – Bauserman, et al. v. State Of Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency, Case No. 15-000202 (Mich. Ct. Claims Jan. 29, 2024) (final settlement agreement granted in a class action to resolve claims over the Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency’s use of a computer program to detect fraudulent claims, which resulted in thousands of false fraud determinations).
    4. $3.8 million – Moliga, et al. v. Qdoba Restaurant Corp., Case No. 23-2-11540-6 (Wash. Super. Ct. Apr. 10, 2024) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims that the company violated Washington state’s pay transparency law when it failed to disclose pay information in job postings).
    5. $2.5 million – Arrison, et al. v. Walmart Inc., Case No. 21-CV-481 (D. Ariz. Feb. 16, 2024) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims that the company should have paid nearly 80,000 workers for the time they spent undergoing COVID-19 screenings before clocking in for their shifts).

Top Privacy Class Action Settlements In 2024

The top 10 privacy class action settlements totaled $1.32 billion in 2023, and $896.7 million in 2022.
    1. $90 million – In Re Facebook Internet Tracking Litigation, Case Nos. 22-16903 and 22-16904 (9th Cir. Feb. 21, 2024) (final settlement approval affirmed in a class action to resolve claims alleging that Facebook used cookies to track the internet activity of logged-out social network users who visited third-party websites containing Facebook “Like” button plugins).
    2. $75 million – Rogers, et al. v. BNSF Railway Co., Case No. 19-CV-3083 (N.D. Ill. June 18, 2024) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the company unlawfully scanned drivers’ fingerprints for identity verification purposes without written, informed permission or notice when they visited BNSF rail yards).
    3. $62 million – In Re Google Location History Litigation, Case No. 18-CV-5062 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2024) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims that Google illegally collected and stored smartphone users’ private location information).
    4. $52.5 million – Schreiber, et al. v. Mayo Foundation For Medical Education And Research, Case No. 22-CV-188 (W.D. Mich. May 25, 2024) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims that the company shared subscriber information with third parties without getting consumer consent).
    5. $52 million – In Re Clearview AI Inc. Consumer Privacy Litigation, Case No. 21-CV-135 (N.D. Ill. June 21, 2024) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a novel settlement in a multidistrict litigation targeting Clearview AI’s allegedly unlawful practice of “scraping” internet photos to collect biometric facial data wherein the class will receive a 23% stake in the company).

Top Products Liability And Mass Tort Class Action Settlements In 2024

The top 10 products liability / mass tort class action settlements totaled $25.83 billion in 2023, and $50.32 billion in 2022.
    1. $10.3 billion – In Re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Product Liability Litigation, MDL 2873 (D.S.C. Mar. 29, 2024) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims with 3M by utilities that maintain it’s liable for the damage they have and will incur due to its signature PFAS that were used for decades in specialized fire suppressants, called aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF), that were sprayed directly into the environment and reached drinking water).
    2. $1.18 billion – Camden, et al. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Case No. 23-3230 (D.S.C. Feb. 8, 2024) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims in a multidistrict litigation for the firefighting agent aqueous film forming foam (AFFF), which contains per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
    3. $1.1 billion – Philips Recalled CPAP, Bi-Level PAP, And Mechanical Ventilator Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 21-MC-1230 (W.D. Penn. Apr. 29, 2024) (settlement reached in a multi-district litigation claiming that degraded foam in breathing machines caused plaintiffs personal injuries or will require long-term medical monitoring).
    4. $916 million – State Of Hawaii, et al. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Case No. 1CC141000708 (Hawaii Cir. Ct. May 21, 2024) (court found in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered payment by the companies to resolve claim alleging they marketed and sold Plavix in an unfair and deceptive manner, and that the companies failed to disclose that the drug could be harmful to those of East Asian and Pacific Islander ancestry).
    5. $750 million – In Re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 18-MN-2873 (D.S.C. June 11, 2024) (preliminary settlement approval granted to resolve claims that Johnson Controls International PLC subsidiary Tyco Fire Products LP’s public water systems’ federal claims that some “forever chemicals” they detected in their supplies came from firefighting foam it made).

Top Securities Fraud Class Action Settlements In 2024

The top 10 securities fraud class action settlements totaled $5.4 billion in 2023, and $3.25 billion in 2022.
    1. $580 million – Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System, et al. v. Bank of America Corp. Litigation, Case No. 17-CV-6221 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2024) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the defendants conspired to block and boycott new offerings that would have increased competition and improved the efficiency and transparency of the market, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act).
    2. $490 million – In Re Apple Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 19-CV-2033 (N.D. Cal. June 3, 2024) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims that Apple’s CEO Tim Cook defrauded shareholders by concealing falling demand for iPhones in China).
    3. $434 million – In Re Under Armour Securities Litigation, Case No. RDB-17-388 (D. Md. June 21, 2024) (settlement reached in a class action brought by investors alleging that the company inflated stock prices by hiding declining demand for its products).
    4. $350 million – In Re Alphabet Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 18-CV-6245 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2024) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims that the company deceived them about a March 2018 software glitch that allegedly gave third-party app developers the ability to access the private profile data of 500,000 users of the Google Plus social media site).
    5. $192.5 million – Chabot, et al. v. Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc., Case No. 18-CV-2118 (M.D. Penn. Feb. 7, 2024) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims that the company’s executives lied about the likelihood of an ultimately unsuccessful merger between the two drugstore chains).

Top TCPA Class Action Settlements In 2024

The top 10 TCPA class action settlements totaled $103.45 million in 2023, and $134.13 million in 2022.
    1. $21.88 million – Smith, et al. v. Assurance IQ LLC, Case No. 2023-CH-09225 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Sept. 3, 2024) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act with unsolicited robocalls).
    2. $9.7 million – Berman, et al. v. Freedom Financial Network LLC, Case No. 18-CV-1060 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2024) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the debt consolidation company and its subsidiaries made telemarketing calls which violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act).
    3. $9 million – Moore, et al. v. Robinhood Financial LLC, Case No. 21-CV-1571 (W.D. Wash. July 16, 2024) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims that the company’s referral text messages violated Washington telemarketing laws).
    4. $7 million – Williams, et al. v. Choice Health Insurance LLC, Case No. 23-CV-292 (M.D. Ala. July 9, 2024) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims that the company violated the TCPA with unsolicited marketing calls).
    5. $2 million – Burnett, et al v. CallCore Media Inc., Case No. 21-CV-3176 (S.D. Tex. June 25, 2024) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims the company placed prerecorded phone calls to consumers in violation of state laws and the federal TCPA).

 

Posted on by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

EEOC Weighs In On Novel Artificial Intelligence Suit Alleging Discriminatory Hiring Practices

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Alex W, Karasik, and George J. Schaller

Duane Morris Takeaways: In Mobley v. Workday, Inc., Case No. 23-CV-770 (N.D. Cal. April 9, 2024) (ECF No. 60), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amicus Brief in Support of Plaintiff and in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. This development follows Workday’s first successful Motion to Dismiss, about which we previously blogged here, after which the Court allowed Plaintiff a chance to amend his complaint. 

For employers utilizing Artificial Intelligence in their hiring practices, this notable case is worth monitoring. The EEOC’s decision to insert itself in the dispute demonstrates the Commission’s commitment to continued enforcement of anti-discrimination laws bearing on artificial intelligence use in employment. 

Case Background

Plaintiff, an African American male over the age of forty alleged that he suffered from anxiety and depression and brought suit against Workday claiming that its applicant screening tools discriminated against applicants on the basis of race, age, and disability.  Plaintiff further alleged that he applied for 80 to 100 jobs, but despite holding a bachelor’s degree in finance and an associate’s degree in network systems administration, he did not get a single job offer.  Id., 1-2 (ECF No. 45).

Workday moved to dismiss the Complaint in part arguing that Plaintiff did not allege facts to state a plausible claim that Workday was liable as an “employment agency” under the anti-discrimination statutes at issue.

On January 19, 2024, the Court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, but with leave for Plaintiff to amend, on the ground that plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts regarding Workday’s supposed liability as an employer or “employment agency.”  Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint.  Id. (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2024) (ECF No. 47.)

On March 12, 2024, Workday filed its Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint, asserting that Workday is not covered by the statutes at issue – Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and/or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) – because Workday merely screens job seekers rather than procuring them.  Id., (ECF No. 50.)  On April 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed his opposition (id., ECF No. 59) and, on April 12, 2024, Workday filed its reply.  Id., (ECF No. 61.)

The motion is fully briefed and set for hearing on May 7, 2024.

The EEOC’s Motion for Leave to File an Amicus Brief

On April 9, 2024, before Workday filed its Reply, the EEOC filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amicus Brief in Support of Plaintiff and in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion.  Id., (ECF Nos. 60 & 60-1.)  The EEOC noticed its Motion for hearing on May 7, 2024.  Id., (ECF No. 60.)

The EEOC describes Mobley as a case that “implicate[s] whether,” Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA, “cover[s] entities that purportedly screen and refer applicants and make automated hiring decisions on behalf of employers using algorithmic tools.”  Id., at 1 (ECF No. 60-1.)  The Commission argues that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint satisfies federal pleading standards “with respect to all three theories of coverage alleged.”  Id., at 4.

First, with respect to Workday as an employment agency, the EEOC notes that Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA, all prohibit discrimination by employment agencies.  Under each statute, the term “employment agency” includes “any person regularly undertaking with or without compensation to procure employees for an employer.”  Id.  The EEOC maintains courts generally construe “employment agency” based on “‘those engaged to a significant degree’ in such procurement activities ‘as their profession or business,’” and the focus on the degree to which an entity engages in “activities of an employment agency.”  Id.

The EEOC argues, among these activities, screening and referral activities are classically associated with employment agencies.  Id., at 5.  The Commission asserts that “[Plaintiff] has plausibly alleged that Workday’s algorithmic tools perform precisely the same screening and referral functions as traditional employment agencies—albeit by more sophisticated means.”  Id., at 6.  In contrasting Workday’s position, the EEOC urged the Court to find Workday’s arguments that “screening employees is not equivalent to procuring employees,” and that Workday does not “actively recruit or solicit applications” as unpersuasive.  Id., at 7.

Second, the EEOC argues leading precedent weighs in favor of Plaintiff’s allegations that Workday is an indirect employer.  Taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true, the EEOC contends that “Workday exercised sufficient control over [Plaintiff’s] and others applicants’ access to employment opportunities to qualify as an indirect employer,” and “Workday purportedly acts as a gatekeeper between applicants and prospective employers.”  Id., at 11. 

The EEOC argues Workday’s position on sufficient control misses the point.  Workday’s assertion that it “does not exert ‘control over its customers,’ who ‘are not required to use Workday tools and are free to stop using them at any time,” is not the inquiry.  Id., at 12.  Rather, the relevant inquiry is “whether the defendant can control or interfere with the plaintiff’s access to that employer,” and the EEOC notes that the nature of that control or interference “will always be a product of each specific factual situation.”  Id.

Finally, the EEOC maintains that Plaintiff plausibly alleged Workday is an agent of employers. The EEOC also maintains that under the relevant statutes the term “employer” includes “any agent of” an employer and several circuits have reasoned that an employer’s agent may be held independently liable for discrimination under some circumstances.  Id. 

In analyzing Plaintiff’s allegations, the EEOC argues that Plaintiff satisfies this requirement, where Plaintiff “alleges facts suggesting that employers delegate control of significant aspects of the hiring process to Workday.”  Id., at 13.  Accordingly, the EEOC concludes that Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient and demonstrate “Workday’s employer-clients rely on the results of its algorithmic screening tools to make at least some initial decisions to reject candidates.”  Id., at 14.

On April 15, 2024, the Court ordered any opposition or statement of non-opposition to the EEOC’s motion for leave shall be filed by April 23, 2024.  Id.  (ECF No. 62.)

Implications For Employers

With the EEOC’s filing and sudden involvement, Employers should put great weight on EEOC enforcement efforts in emerging technologies, such as AI.  The EEOC’s stance in Mobley shows that this case is one of first impression and may create precedent for pleading in AI-screening tool discrimination cases regarding the reach of “employment decisions,” by an entity – whether directly, indirectly, or by delegation through an agent.

The Mobley decision is still pending, but all Employers harnessing artificial intelligence for “employment decisions” must follow this case closely.  As algorithm-based applicant screening tools become more common place –the anticipated flood of employment discrimination lawsuits is apt to follow.

 

Posted on by Alex W. Karasik

EEOC Mid-Year Lawsuit Filing Update For Fiscal Year 2024


By Alex W. Karasik, Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer A. Riley

Duane Morris Takeaways: The EEOC’s fiscal year (“FY 2024”) spans from October 1, 2023 to September 30, 2024. Through the midway point of FY 2024, EEOC enforcement litigation filings have been noticeably down. In the first six months of FY 2023, there were 29 new lawsuits filed by the Commission, while only 14 lawsuits were filed through the midway point of FY 2024.

Traditionally, the second half of the EEOC’s fiscal year – and particularly in the final months of August and September – are when the majority of filings occur. Even so, an analysis of the types of lawsuits filed, and the locations where they are filed, is informative for employers in terms of what to expect during the fiscal year-end lawsuit filing rush in September.

Cases Filed By EEOC District Offices

In addition to tracking the total number of filings, we closely monitor which of the EEOC’s 15 district offices are most active in terms of filing new cases over the course of the fiscal year. Some districts tend to be more aggressive than others, and some focus on different case filing priorities. The following chart shows the number of lawsuit filings by EEOC district office.

The most noticeable trend of the first six months of FY 2024 is that the Atlanta and Philadelphia District Offices already filed three lawsuits each. Houston, Indianapolis, and New York each have two lawsuit filings, and Dallas and Chicago have one each. That means that many of the district offices have yet to file a lawsuit at all in FY 2024. But for employers in the Atlanta and Philadelphia metropolitan areas, these early tea leaves suggest that a higher likelihood of pending charges may turn into federal lawsuits by the end of Summer to next Fall.

Analysis Of The Types Of Lawsuits Filed In First Half Of FY 2024

We also analyzed the types of lawsuits the EEOC filed throughout the first six months, in terms of the statutes and theories of discrimination alleged, in order to determine how the EEOC is shifting its strategic priorities. The chart below shows the EEOC filings by allegation type.

The percentage of each type of filing has remained fairly consistent over the past several years. However, in FY 2024, nearly every filing has contained Title VII claims, with 12 of the 14, or 87% alleging these violations. This is a major increase over past years — in FY 2023, Title VII claims in 59% of all filings, 69% in FY 2022, and 62%. ADA cases were alleged in three lawsuits filed, for 21% of the cases, a decrease from the EEOC’s FY 2023 filings of 31%, 18% in FY 2022, and 36% in FY 2021. There was also an ADEA claim in one of the lawsuits and Pregnancy Discrimination Act claim in another.

The graph set out below shows the number of lawsuits filed according to the statute under which they were filed (Title VII, Americans With Disabilities Act, Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Equal Pay Act, and Age Discrimination in Employment Act) and, for Title VII cases, the theory of discrimination alleged.

The industries impacted by EEOC-initiated litigation have also remained consistent in FY 2024. The chart below details that hospitality, healthcare, and retail employers have maintained their lead as corporate defendants in the last 18 months of EEOC-initiated litigation.

Notable 2024 Lawsuit Filings

Gender Identity Discrimination

In EEOC v. Sis-Bro, Inc., Case No. 24-CV-968 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 28, 2024), the EEOC brought suit alleging that the farm violated federal law when it allowed an employee to be harassed because of her sex and gender identity after she began transitioning genders. The EEOC contended that the employee was subjected to frequent, derogatory comments about the employee’s gender identity; the co-owner refused to call the targeted employee by her name and referred to her by her former name; repeatedly told her she was “a guy”; and criticized her use of employer-provided health insurance and leave for gender affirming care, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Disability Discrimination

In EEOC v. Atlantic Property Management, Case No. 24-CV-10370 (D. Mass. Oct. 4, 2023), the EEOC filed an action on behalf of a new hire who the company allegedly rescinded a job offer following the employee’s cancer diagnosis. The EEOC alleged that the individual was offered employment as an executive administrative assistant to the president and vice president of the two companies. Shortly after the offer of employment, the employee was diagnosed with breast cancer. Her doctor confirmed she was able to perform all aspects of her position, but she would need to receive treatment weekly resulting in a need for some limited time off from work. When she provided her doctor’s note to the companies, the president decided to withdraw her job offer without any discussion with the employee, which the EEOC alleged violated the ADA.

Race / National Origin Discrimination

In EEOC v. Bob’s Tire Company, Case No. 24-CV-10077 (D. Mass. Jan. 10, 2024), the EEOC filed an action alleging that the company violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by subjecting employees to egregious and constant harassment, including the owner telling Hispanic employees to “go back to [their] country”; calling Guatemalan employees “f—ing Guatemalans”; donning a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement hat to intimidate Hispanic employees; and calling employees homophobic slurs. Additionally, the EEOC contended that employees were also harassed by a co-worker because of their sex, race, and national origin, and at least one employee complained to the owner, who retaliated against this complaining employee by mocking him for being in a romantic and/or sexual relationship with the harassing co-worker.

These filings illustrate that the EEOC will likely continue to prioritize sex, disability, and race discrimination claims in the second half of FY 2024.

March 2024 Release Of Enforcement Statistics

On March 12, 2024, the EEOC published its fiscal year 2023 Annual Performance Report (FY 2023 APR), highlighting the Commission’s recovery of $665 million in monetary relief for over 22,000 workers, a near 30% increase for workers over Fiscal Year 2022. This annual publication from the EEOC is noteworthy for employers in terms of recognizing the EEOC’s reach, understanding financial exposure for workplace discrimination claims, and identifying areas where the EEOC may focus its litigation efforts in the coming year. It is a must read for corporate counsel, HR professional, and business leaders.

As we blogged about here, the Commission reported having one of the most litigious years in recent memory in FY 2023, with 142 new lawsuits filed, marking a 50% increase from FY 2022. Among these new lawsuits, 86 were filed on behalf of individuals, 32 were non-systemic suits involving multiple victims, and 25 were systemic suits addressing discriminatory policies or affecting multiple victims. The EEOC also touted that it obtained $22.6 million for 968 individuals in litigation, while resolving 98 lawsuits and achieving favorable results in 91% of all federal district court resolutions.

These numbers show the EEOC is still aggressively litigating discrimination claims, and despite the slow start in FY 2024, we anticipate the EEOC will turn up the jets in the second half of the fiscal year.

Strategic Priorities

The Commission also reported significant progress in its “priority areas” for 2023, which included combatting systemic discrimination, preventing workplace harassment, advancing racial justice, remedying retaliation, advancing pay equity, promoting diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility (“DEIA”) in the workplace, and, significantly, embracing the use of technology, including artificial intelligence, machine learning, and other automated systems in employment decisions.

In 2023, the EEOC resolved over 370 systemic investigations on the merits, resulting in over $29 million in monetary benefits for victims of discrimination. The Commission also reported that its litigation program achieved a 100% success rate in its systemic case resolutions, obtaining over $11 million for 806 systemic discrimination victims, as well as substantial equitable relief.  Further, the Commission made outreach and education programs a priority in 2023, and specifically sought to reach vulnerable workers and underserved communities, including immigrant and farmworker communities, hosting over 680 events for these groups and partnering with over 1,120 organizations, reaching over 107,000 attendees.

These statistics confirm the Commission’s prowess, dictating that employers should take heed in the coming months as the EEOC seeks to match these gaudy figures.

Other Notable Developments

Beyond touting its monetary successes, and litigation accomplishments, the FY 2023 APR also highlights the newly enacted Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (“PWFA”), which provides workers with limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions the ability to obtain reasonable accommodations, absent undue hardship to the employer.

The Commission began accepting PWFA charges on June 27, 2023 (the law’s effective date) and has conducted broad public outreach relating to employers’ compliance obligations under the new law.

Takeaways For Employers

By all accounts, FY 2023 was a record-breaking year for the EEOC. As demonstrated in the report, the Commission has pursued an increasingly aggressive and ambitious litigation strategy to achieve its regulatory goals.  The data confirms that the EEOC had a great deal of success in obtaining financially significant monetary awards.

Although the early numbers are lagging as compared with last year, we anticipate that the EEOC will continue to aggressively pursue its strategic priority areas in FY 2024.  There is no reason to believe that the annual “September surge” is not coming, in what could be another precedent-setting year.  We will continue to monitor EEOC litigation activity on a daily basis, and look forward to providing our blog readers with up-to-date analysis on the latest developments.

Finally, we are thrilled to announce that will be providing a webinar on May 13, 2024, to further analyze the above data.  Employers will gain insight on what they should be doing to ready themselves for the remainder of FY 2024.  Save the date and stay tuned!

Posted on by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Texas Federal Court Throws Out Data Breach Class Action

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Emilee N. Crowther

Duane Morris Takeaways: In Austin v. Fleming, Nolen & Jez, LLP, No. 4:23-CV-00901, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60696 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 2, 2024), Judge Andrew S. Hanen of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a data breach class action. The Court found that the time Plaintiff’s allegations about the time spent – (i) researching the data breach, (ii) exploring credit monitoring and identity theft options, (iii) self-monitoring her accounts, and (iv) seeking legal counsel – were not compensable damages and could not support her claims.  This case serves as an important reminder that named Plaintiffs in data breach class actions must have suffered an actual, viable, concrete injury to sustain their claims.

Case Background

On February 6, 2023, a cybercriminal breached Defendant’s servers and obtained some of its confidential client data.  Id. at *1.  The cybercriminal then demanded Defendant pay money to avoid the publication of Defendant’s confidential client data on the dark web.  Id.  After Defendant sent out data breach notice letters to their potentially affected clientele, the named Plaintiff, a former client of Defendant, filed a class action complaint against Defendant asserting claims for negligence, breach of confidence, breach of implied contract, and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  Id.

Defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis that Plaintiff had not, and could not, establish that she had suffered any damages as a result of the data breach.  Id.  In response, Plaintiff presented an affidavit from a putative class member who had suffered monetary damages due to identity theft.  Id.

The Court’s Decision

The Court ruled that Plaintiff could not rely on a putative class member’s purported damages to support her claims prior to class certification, and as such, any evidence supporting the claims of other class members was “irrelevant.”  Id. at 4.  As a result, the Court only considered Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as it pertained to Plaintiff’s individual claim against the Defendant. Id.

The Court held that none of the following allegations of harm were sufficient for Plaintiff to maintain her claims — “time spent verifying the legitimacy and impact of the data breach, exploring credit monitoring and identity theft insurance options, self-monitoring her accounts and seeking legal counsel regarding her options for remedying and/or mitigating the effects of the data breach.”  Id. at *5-6.

Accordingly, the Court found that because Plaintiff could not show “that she was injured by the data breach” or that “she suffered any damages,” summary judgment was proper.  Id. at *6.

Implications For Companies

The Court’s ruling in Austin v. Fleming underscores the importance of damages and a viable injury-in-fact in data breach class actions.  The first line of defense in any data breach class action challenging whether the named Plaintiff suffered an actual, concrete injury.  Used effectively, companies can parlay a Plaintiff’s claimed damages in data breach class actions as quick off-ramp out of litigation.

Posted on by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

BIPA Plaintiffs Ring The Bell In Class Certification Victory Over Amazon

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Tyler Zmick, and Christian J. Palacios

Duane Morris Takeaways:  In Svoboda v. Amazon, Case No. 21-C-5336, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58867 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 30, 2024), Judge Jorge L. Alonso of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted class certification to a class of plaintiffs who alleged that Amazon’s “virtual try-on” (“VTO”) technology violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”).  In doing so, Judge Alonso dealt Amazon a significant blow in its efforts to block the certification of a purported class of claimants that might number in the millions (with pre-certification discovery already establishing that there were over 160,000 persons who used Amazon’s VTO technology during the relevant class period). This decision is the most recent success by the plaintiffs’ bar in a string of victories for class action privacy lawsuits across Illinois and illustrates that even the largest and most sophisticated companies in the world face legal exposure in connection with their biometric retention and application practices. 

Background

Amazon sells products to consumers on its mobile website and shopping application. Its “virtual try-on” technology allows users to virtually try on makeup and eyewear, and is exclusively available on mobile devices. VTOs are software programs that use augmented reality to overlay makeup and eyewear products on an image or video of a face, which allows shoppers to see what the product might look like prior to deciding whether to purchase it. During the relevant class period, there were two VTOs at issue, one of which was developed by a third party (ModiFace), and another which was developed in-house by Amazon that later replaced ModiFace. Id. at 4. Amazon’s VTOs come in two forms, including: (1) VTO technology available for lip products, and; (2) VTOs available for glasses. The ModiFace VTO is available for lip liner, eye shadow, eye liner, and hair color. Amazon licenses, rather than owns ModiFace VTO. Id. at 5.

Both Amazon and ModiFace VTOs essentially works the same for every user. In order to access Amazon’s virtual try-on technology, the user first begins by clicking a “try on” button on an Amazon product page (the use of this try-on feature is entirely optional and does not serve as a barrier to the customer actually purchasing the product). The first time the customer uses Amazon VTO, she is shown a pop-up screen that states, “Amazon uses your camera to virtually place products such as sunglasses and lipstick on your face using Augmented Reality. All information remains on your device and is not otherwise stored, processed or shared by Amazon.”  Only after granting permission can the customer use the VTO technology to virtually try on the product. Users may select “live mode” or “photo upload mode” to superimpose the try-on product on an image of their own face. For both modes, the VTOs use software to detect users’ facial features and use that facial data in order to determine where to overlay the virtual products. Id. at 5.

Based on these facts, plaintiffs brought a class action lawsuit against Amazon, which alleged that the online retailer violated the BIPA’s requirements by collecting, capturing, storing or otherwise obtaining the facial geometry and associated personal identifying information of thousands (if not millions) of Illinois residents who used Amazon’s VTO applications from computers and other devices without first providing notice and the required information, obtaining informed written consent, or creating written publicly-available data retention and destruction guidelines. Id. Plaintiffs sought to certify a class of all individuals who used a virtual try-on feature on Amazon’s mobile website or app while in Illinois on or after September 7, 2016. Significantly, pre-certification discovery established that at least 163,738 people used virtual try-on technology on Amazon’s platforms while in Illinois during the class period. Id. at 6.

The Court’s Ruling

In ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, Judge Alonso systematically rejected each of Amazon’s arguments as to why plaintiffs failed to satisfy Rule 23’s requirements for class certification. Given the size of the purported class, Amazon did not attempt to contest the numerosity requirement. With respect to the adequacy requirement, Amazon argued that the named plaintiffs were inadequate and atypical because they alleged they used VTO for lipstick, and not eyewear or eye makeup (while the majority of the proposed class was comprised of individuals who used VTO for eyewear). Amazon further argued that the named plaintiffs had a conflicting interest with the class members who used VTO for eyewear, because the BIPA’s healthcare exception bars claims arising from the virtual try-on of eyewear. Id. at 12.  The Court rejected this argument. It found that there was no evidence that the named plaintiffs’ interests were antagonistic, or directly conflicted with those members who used VTO to try on eyewear, and Amazon’s concern that plaintiffs lacked an incentive to vigorously contest the healthcare exception defense was merely speculative. Id. The Court was also satisfied that the plaintiffs’ claims arose from the same course of conduct that gave rise to other class members’ claims (such as Amazon’s purported collection, capture, possession, and use of facial templates via its VTOs) and thus the typicality requirement was satisfied. Id. at 15.

Similarly, the Court reasoned that common questions of law or fact predominated over any questions affecting individual members, and a class action was superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.  Id. at 17. Amazon asserted that there was no reliable way to identify class members who used VTO in Illinois during the class period, and thus, individualized inquiries predominated rendering the case unmanageable. Id. at 21. The Court rejected this argument. It agreed with the plaintiffs that Illinois billing addresses, IP addresses from which VTO was used, and geo-location data all served as a way of identifying class members. Amazon raised other arguments about the difficulty of identifying potential class members, but Judge Alonzo rejected all of these arguments, observing that plaintiffs did not need to identify every member of the class at the certification stage.  Id. at 23.

Finally, the Court dispatched with Amazon’s various affirmative defenses. In particular, Amazon argued that it had unique defenses for every member of the putative class, since damages were discretionary under the BIPA. The Court disagreed. It noted that the Illinois Supreme Court had determined that a trial court could fashion a damages award in a BIPA lawsuit that fairly compensated class members while deterring future violations, without destroying a defendant’s business. Id. at 25.

Implications for Employers

Employers should be well aware of the dangers associated with collecting or retaining individuals’ biometric information without BIPA-compliant policies in place. This case serves as a reminder that the larger the company, the larger the potential class size of a class or collective action. Although it remains to be seen the actual size of Svoboda v. Amazon, the class will likely number in the hundreds of thousands and this case should serve as a wake-up call for companies, regardless of scale, of the dangers of running afoul of the Prairie State’s privacy laws.

Posted on by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

EEOC Scores Summary Judgement Victory Against Indiana RV Maker In Disability Suit

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Alex W. Karasik, and Christian J. Palacios

Duane Morris Takeaways:  In EEOC v. Keystone RV Company, Case No. 3:22-CV-831 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 27, 2024), Judge Damon R. Leichty of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana held that an employer was liable under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) for failing to accommodate a former employee after the company terminated the worker for attendance issues stemming from his novel medical condition. This rare summary judgement victory in favor of the Commission illustrates the importance of employers engaging in an interactive process with their employees to provide them with reasonable accommodations under federal anti-discrimination laws, and the legal liability associated with non-compliance. 

Background

The Charging party, Brandon Meeks, was diagnosed with cystinuria at the age of 19, a rare chronic illness that caused kidney stones to develop with irregular frequency. Roughly once every two years, he developed a large kidney stone that required surgical removal. In 2019 Meeks was hired as a painter at Keystone’s Wakarusa, Indiana plant, where he painted the base coat on RV wheels.  Keystone had an attendance policy whereby it would terminate an employee who accrued seven “attendance points” (absences) within a year, and allowed an employee to miss up to three consecutive days from one doctor’s note and accrue just one attendance point without applying for an ADA accommodation.  Id. at 2.  According to the record, Mr. Meeks was a “diligent and hard worker,” but he accrued several attendance points for absences related to his medical condition, including a visit to his urologist, and treatment for kidney stone pain. Id.

On November 13, 2019, Meeks collapsed in a restroom due to excruciating pain.  He was promptly rushed to the hospital and informed by a doctor that he had a “golf-ball-sized kidney stone” in his left kidney that would need to be surgically removed.  Id. at 3.  Meeks informed Keystone that he would require two weeks off of work to schedule and recover from surgery, which his employer agreed to given that Keystone’s Wakarusa plant closed down for several weeks from December to January and Meeks would only need a single day off of work. Prior to this request, Meeks had accrued 6 attendance points.  Id. at 4.  When Meeks returned to work on January 13, 2020, he informed Keystone he would need time off for another surgery scheduled on January 24, 2020. Meeks’ manager forecasted to him that he would be terminated if he missed work, and could reapply for employed 60 days later, per company policy.  Id.  According to the manager, Meeks did not provide a return to work date in connection with his second surgery request.  According to Meeks, he knew he could likely return to work on January 27, 2020, but he never communicated this timeline to Keystone because his employer “never asked.” Id. After Meeks underwent his second surgery, on January 24, 2020, his mother drove him to the plant to pick up his paycheck, upon which he was sent to the corporate office and informed he was terminated due to his attendance points.  Meeks subsequently filed a Charge with the EEOC. After its investigation, the EEOC brought suit on his behalf.  On March 27, 2024, Judge Leichty granted summary judgement in favor of the Commission.

The District Court’s Ruling

Judge Leichty began his 19-page ruling by observing that this case illustrated one reason “why the ADA existed.”  Id. at 1.  Judge Leichty observed that “[n]o one can reasonably dispute that Mr. Meeks was a qualified individual with a disability. Keystone knew of the disability. And Keystone failed to accommodate the disability reasonably. A reasonable jury could not find otherwise on this record.”  Id. at 7.

As the record reflected, the Court reasoned that Keystone clearly could have accommodated providing Meeks with two weeks leave, and yet it had not done so. The Court was unpersuaded by Keystone’s arguments that Meeks did not effectively communicate with his employer, and prior to his January surgery, he did not provide Keystone with an estimated return date.  Rather, the Court determined that Keystone had an affirmative obligation to initiate an interactive process with its employees, and had historical knowledge of Meeks’ disability; because of this, the fault was theirs alone.  Thus, “[a] reasonable jury could not lay the fault at Mr. Meeks’ feet,” and the Court granted summary judgement in the EEOC’s favor on ADA liability.  Id. at 10-11.

Judge Leichty scheduled a trial at a later date to assess the question of damages, as factual disputes remained regarding Meeks’ reasonable diligence at finding comparable employment.

Implications For Employers

As the ruling in EEOC v. Keystone RV Company illustrates, it is imperative that employers engage in an interactive process with employees with respect to disability accommodations, provided the employer has reason to know of the employee’s disability. Significantly, a formal ADA request is not necessary on the part of the employee for a court to find an employer at fault for a breakdown of the interactive process.  Because of this, employers should have robust policies in place to proactively provide their employees with reasonable accommodations for their disabilities. To do otherwise risks receiving a pre-liability judgement in favor of a federal, state, or municipal regulatory agency tasked with enforcing anti-discrimination legislation.

© 2009- Duane Morris LLP. Duane Morris is a registered service mark of Duane Morris LLP.

The opinions expressed on this blog are those of the author and are not to be construed as legal advice.

Proudly powered by WordPress