Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. – Class Action Defense

April 3, 2026April 3, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

“A Matter Of Consent” – Ninth Circuit Finds Non-Mutual Offensive Collateral Estoppel Inappropriate In Invalidating Individual Arbitration Agreements Under The Federal Arbitration Act

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jamar D. Davis, and Caitlin Capriotti

Duane Morris Takeaways: On April 1, 2026, in Laura O’Dell et. al. v. Aya Healthcare Services, Inc., No. 25-1528, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 9420 (9th Cir. Apr. 1, 2026), a panel for the Ninth Circuit held that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California erred in relying on non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel to preclude the enforcement of hundreds of arbitration agreements based select arbitral awards from unappointed arbitrators for different parties. This decision reaffirms the principle of consent set forth in the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) and the Ninth Circuit’s preference (in line with the FAA) for enforcement of valid arbitration agreements in individualized proceedings.

Case Background

Aya Healthcare Services, Inc. (“Aya”) is an agency the pairs traveling nurses and other supporting clinicians with hospitals in need. In 2022, four former employees filed a putative class action against Aya for allegedly reducing their pay mid-contract, asserting breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, state wage-and-hour violations, and violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). As a condition of employment, all employees signed arbitration agreements to resolve any employment-related disputes outside of the court system. Aya moved to compel arbitration, and the U. S. District Court for the Southern District of California (the “District Court”) granted the motion and compelled all four named plaintiffs to arbitration.

Aya proceeded to arbitrate with each of the four plaintiffs in four separate arbitrations. Each plaintiff challenged the validity of the arbitration agreements, and the delegation clause assigned the arbitrator (rather than the court) authority to decide whether the arbitration agreement was valid. Two arbitrators ruled the arbitration agreements were unconscionable, and two arbitrators ruled the arbitration agreements were valid. By the time the parties moved the District Court to confirm their respective arbitral awards, 255 additional plaintiffs had opted-in to the case pursuant to a collective action procedure under the FLSA. Aya moved to compel each of these plaintiffs to arbitration. In response, a newly assigned district judge raised sua sponte the issue of whether collateral estoppel barred Aya from enforcing the additional arbitration agreements against the opt-in plaintiffs. Ultimately, the District Court denied Aya’s motion to compel arbitration.

The District Court applied the doctrine of non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel to preclude the enforcement of the arbitration agreements between Aya and the 255 employees. This doctrine was “non-mutual” because a party different from the party in the original action is seeking preclusion and “offensive” because the new party is using a prior award as a sword (rather than a shield). However, the District Court only gave the collateral estoppel effect to the two decisions finding the arbitration agreements unconscionable, and awarded no such power to the decisions holding the arbitration agreements as valid. The Ninth Circuit reviewed the motion to compel arbitration de novo.

The Ninth Circuit’s Decision

The Ninth Circuit held that the District Court’s novel application of an equitable preclusion doctrine did not preclude the enforcement of the arbitration agreements because application of the doctrine runs contrary to FAA’s intention to enforce the agreed upon terms of valid arbitration agreements in individualized proceedings. “Precluding an arbitration that the parties had agreed to – because a different arbitrator in a different proceeding had concluded that an agreement between different parties was unconscionable – would render the parties’ consent meaningless,” wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Eric C. Tung (emphasis in original). This goes against the fundamental requirement that each arbitration agreement requires individualized resolution. The Ninth Circuit also stated that “the application of non-mutual offensive issue preclusion would also violate the principle of consent that the [Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”)] incorporates.” Id. at *8. When parties enter arbitration agreements, the FAA serves to have those agreements enforced. Further, even when the validity of an arbitration agreement is at issue, the issue-preclusion doctrine is not a “generally applicable contract defense.” Id.

Further, the Ninth Circuit determined that the District Court’s order effectively transformed individual arbitration proceedings into a bellwether class action to which the parties never agreed. This also goes to the issue of consent. The Ninth Circuit cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U.S. 497 (2018), and Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (2010), as holding that imposing a class action without the parties’ consent (or adequacy of representation) and where the parties had agreed to individual arbitration is a violation of the FAA. Allowing one arbitration proceeding to preclude hundreds or thousands of arbitration agreements, as the logic of the District Court suggests, regardless of adequacy of representation, would strip the resulting class action from all its important protective features.

As a result, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings.

Implications For Employers

This decision reaffirms the strength of the FAA and reiterates the Ninth Circuit’s preference for enforcing arbitration agreements on an individualized basis.

District court judges who may have personal preferences against arbitration cannot destroy the FAA with novel doctrines inconsistent with the FAA.

April 3, 2026April 3, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Seventh Circuit Holds BIPA Amendment Applies Retroactively, Reversing Three Illinois Federal Court Decisions

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Hayley Ryan, and Tyler Zmick

Duane Morris Takeaways: On April 1, 2026, in Clay et al. v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. et al., Nos. 25-2185 et al., 2026 WL 891902 (7th Cir. Apr. 1, 2026), a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed three federal district court decisions and held that the August 2, 2024, amendment to Section 20 of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) applies retroactively to cases pending at the time of enactment. The Seventh Circuit concluded that the amendment is remedial because it governs damages rather than liability and, therefore, applies retroactively under Illinois law.

This decision is a watershed win for BIPA defendants in the class action space. It significantly curtails potential exposure by confirming that plaintiffs may recover, at most, $5,000 in statutory damages for intentional violations or $1,000 for negligent violations per person, rather than on a per-scan basis that previously threatened astronomical liability.

Background

As the Seventh Circuit observed, “BIPA has become a font of high-stakes litigation.” Id. at *1. In response to the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in Cothron v. White Castle Sys., Inc., 216 N.E.3d 918, 926 (Ill. 2023), which held that BIPA claims accrue “with every scan or transmission” of biometric information, the Illinois General Assembly amended Section 20 of the BIPA in August 2024 to clarify the scope of recoverable damages. The amendment provides, in relevant part, that a private entity that collects or discloses “the same biometric identifier or biometric information from the same person using the same method of collection…has committed a single violation…for which the aggrieved person is entitled to, at most, one recovery under this Section.” 740 ILCS 14/20(b) (emphasis added).

The consolidated appeals arose from three cases asserting typical BIPA theories. Plaintiff Reginald Clay alleged that Union Pacific violated Section 15(b) by requiring repeated fingerprint scans to access the company’s facilities. Plaintiffs John Gregg and Brandon Willis alleged that their employers used biometric timekeeping systems in violation of Sections 15(a), (b), and (d).

The Seventh Circuit emphasized the extraordinary financial stakes. Plaintiff Clay alleged approximately 1,500 fingerprint scans – translating to $7.5 million in potential damages for a single plaintiff if damages were calculated on a per-scan basis. 2026 WL 891902 at *2. In contrast, the putative class claims in Plaintiff Willis’ case exposed the defendant to billions of dollars in potential liability. Id. The three interlocutory appeals posed the same legal question: whether the 2024 amendment to BIPA Section 20 applies retroactively to limit such exposure.

The Seventh Circuit’s Decision

The Seventh Circuit answered that question with a definitive “yes.” It held that the amendment to Section 20 applies retroactively to pending cases. Id. at *3.

Applying Illinois retroactivity principles, the Seventh Circuit explained that where the legislature is silent on the temporal reach of the amendment, as here, courts look to Section 4 of the Illinois Statute on Statutes, which, in turn, directs the court to determine whether the amendment is substantive or procedural. Id. (citing Perry v. Dep’t of Fin. & Pro. Regul., 106 N.E.3d 1016, 1026-27 (Ill. 2018)).

The Seventh Circuit concluded that the amendment is remedial and, therefore, procedural, because it governs damages rather than underlying liability. Id. at *4. Central to this determination was the statutory text and structure. The legislature amended Section 20, which addresses liquidated damages, rather than Section 15, which sets forth the substantive requirements governing the collection and disclosure of biometric data. The Seventh Circuit emphasized that the amendment does not alter “the rights, duties, and obligations of persons to one another,” which are the defining characteristics of substantive changes. Id. (citing Perry, 106 N.E.3d at 1034). Instead, the amendment focuses exclusively on the remedies available once a violation has been established.

The appellees argued that the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in Cothron established that each biometric scan constitutes a separate “violation,” and that the amendment therefore effected a substantive change by transforming thousands of violations into a single recoverable event, thus “terminating millions of dollars of liability.” Id. at *4. The Seventh Circuit rejected this position, reasoning that it both misinterprets the statute and overstates Cothron’s holding. Id. at *5. The Court clarified that Cothron addressed only when claims accrue under Section 15 and did not consider the meaning of “violation” for purposes of damages under Section 20. Id. According to the Seventh Circuit, that distinction was dispositive. Id.

Ultimately, the Seventh Circuit determined that the amendment does not alter the number of violations or the injuries alleged by plaintiffs but instead limits the damages that may be awarded for those violations. As the Seventh Circuit explained, the amendment “simply changed the statutory award of damages available to plaintiffs, cabining the discretion of trial court judges when they fashion the remedy.” Id. at *6. Accordingly, the Court held that the amendment is remedial in nature and applies retroactively. Id. at *7. It therefore reversed the district court decisions that had concluded otherwise. Id.

Implications for Companies

Clay is one of the most consequential BIPA defense rulings in years. It materially reshapes the litigation landscape in several key respects:

Caps on exposure: The decision eliminates the “per-scan” damages theory asserted by plaintiffs that drove outsized settlement pressure and bet-the-company risk.
Immediate impact on pending cases: Defendants in ongoing litigation now have strong grounds to limit damages and revisit class certification, settlement posture, and jurisdictional arguments.
Strategic leverage: The ruling provides powerful leverage in motion practice and settlement negotiations, particularly where plaintiffs previously relied on inflated damages models.
Deterrence of new filings: By significantly reducing potential recoveries, Clay may dampen the volume of new BIPA filings and recalibrate plaintiffs’ bar incentives.

In sum, Clay delivers a decisive, defense-friendly interpretation of BIPA’s damages framework. Companies facing biometric privacy claims should promptly assess how this ruling affects their litigation strategy and potential exposure.

April 1, 2026April 1, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

New York Federal Court Recommends Denial Of Class Certification In Gender Pay Discrimination Suit Against Bloomberg

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Denis Yavorskiy, and Elizabeth Underwood

Duane Morris Takeaways: On March 24, 2026, in Ndugga v. Bloomberg L.P., No. 20 Civ. 7464, 2026 WL 828730 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2026), Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that class certification be denied in a gender-based pay discrimination case brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”) and the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290-301 (“NYSHRL”). The Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff’s statistical evidence was not significant and flawed and that Plaintiff failed to show that any pay disparity was traceable to a particular senior executive at Bloomberg L.P. (“Bloomberg”).

For employers defending against pattern-or-practice pay discrimination class actions, this decision provides a roadmap for defeating commonality and is a reminder that statistical evidence must be both methodologically sound and causally connected to an identified employment practice.

Case Background

Naula Ndugga, a Black female news producer formerly employed at Bloomberg News, sued Bloomberg alleging gender-based pay discrimination. Ndugga began working as a paid intern at Bloomberg News in September 2017. Ndugga alleged that she was paid a starting salary of $65,000 while male producers hired out of the same internship program received $75,000 and that she was repeatedly overlooked for raises, promotions, and favorable assignments. Her operative complaint, filed in July 2024, sought certification a “U.S. Class” and a “New York Class,” each of which included female reporters, producers, and editors who “(1) were not Team Leaders or in other supervisory positions, and (2) were subjected to [Bloomberg’s] compensation systems.” Id. at *2-3. According to Bloomberg, members of the putative classes worked in nearly 30 cities, in more than 30 different business units, held more than 30 different job profiles, and were assigned to more than 40 different peer groups. Id. at *5.

Central to Ndugga’s theory was that compensation at Bloomberg News was controlled by a “single decisionmaker:” Reto Gregori, Bloomberg News’ deputy editor and a member of its Editorial and Research Management Committee. Id. at *4. Ndugga maintained that Gregori “micromanaged, at both systemic and individual levels, every stage of [Bloomberg News’] multipart evaluation and compensation systems,” resulting in lower pay for women. Id. at *5. Bloomberg countered that performance ratings and compensation decisions were made by hundreds of different managers across the organization. Id.

Ndugga retained labor economist Dr. David Neumark, who performed a regression analysis comparing compensation between female and male employees while controlling for variables such as race, experience, education, job profile, performance ratings, business unit, and an accounting category referred to as “Cost Center.” Id. at *19. For the proposed U.S. Class, Neumark found that female employees’ total compensation was 3.1% below that of similarly situated male employees, which was a difference of 1.64 standard deviations. Id. at *20. For the proposed New York Class, Neumark found a 4.4% disparity, amounting to a difference of 2.29 standard deviations. Id.

The Court’s Analysis

Magistrate Judge Gorenstein’s recommended denying class certification on the grounds that Ndugga failed to put forward sufficient evidence of discrimination to satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2).

First, the Magistrate Judge determined that Neumark’s 1.64 standard deviation result as to the proposed U.S. Class was, by Neumark’s own admission, not statistically significant. Citing Ottaviani v. State Univ. of New York at New Paltz, 875 F.2d 365, 371 (2d Cir. 1989), the court explained that “[a] finding of two standard deviations corresponds approximately to a one in twenty, or five percent, chance that a disparity is merely a random deviation from the norm.” Id. at *15. While some courts have relaxed this threshold for small samples sizes, the Magistrate Judge found no basis for disregarding this rule because Neumark’s analysis was based on a large dataset of 750 compensation records. Id. at *31.

Second, for both proposed classes, the Magistrate Judge found that Neumark’s inclusion of “Cost Center” as a control variable in his regression analysis was improper. Cost Center is an organizational accounting category to which costs are charged, and Neumark even acknowledged that it “does not play a role in compensation guidelines.” Id. at *35. Bloomberg’s expert, Dr. Denise Neumann Martin, demonstrated that when Cost Center was excluded from the analysis, any observed pay differences between men and women were no longer statistically significant at either the 5% or 10% levels. Id. at *38. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge found that the inclusion of this variable “obfuscate[d] the principal explanatory variable” and created a mere “appearance of difference.” Id.

Finally, the Magistrate Judge agreed with Bloomberg that Ndugga did not provide adequate evidence to show that any disparity in pay was traceable to Gregori. Id. Specifically, the court noted that even if Gregori may have been involved in all aspects of compensation, this does not in itself establish that he was responsible for any pay disparity. Id. at *39.

Implications For Employers

This Report and Recommendation in the Ndugga case is a win for employers defending against pattern-or-practice gender pay discrimination class actions and provides guidance on how to defeat a showing of commonality. Employers should scrutinize a plaintiff expert’s findings and assumptions, including whether they fall below the two-standard-deviation threshold, the size of the data set considered, and whether certain control variables are irrelevant like the Cost Center variable was here.

The court’s analysis also illustrates that where lower-level managers exercise substantial discretion over performance ratings and compensation, the involvement of a senior executive in a final review capacity does not automatically transform the process into a class-wide common policy. Even if a plaintiff can show a common mode of exercising discretion through a decisionmaker’s influence, she still must establish a causal relationship between this practice and the pay discrimination alleged.

March 31, 2026March 31, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

AbbVie Defeats Genetic Privacy Class Action Because Request For Plaintiff’s Family Medical History Was Not A “Condition Of Employment”

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Tyler Zmick, and Hayley Ryan

Duane Morris Takeaways: In Henry v. AbbVie, Inc., No. 23-CV-16830 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 20, 2026), Judge Manish S. Shah of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed a claim brought under the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act (“GIPA”). In his ruling, Judge Shah determined that the alleged request for plaintiff’s family medical history (which history Plaintiff did not provide) during his pre-employment medical screening was not a “condition of employment.” The decision is welcome news for employers that ask employees to undergo medical exams. The ruling indicates that an employer does not necessarily request genetic information “as a condition of employment” by requiring an employee to undergo a medical exam (even if an employee is asked to disclose genetic information during the exam).

Background

Plaintiff Daniel Henry was assigned to work for Defendant AbbVie, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company. During the onboarding process, Plaintiff was required to undergo a “medical surveillance,” which included “questionnaires, blood work, and a brief physical exam.” Henry v. AbbVie, Inc., 2026 WL 788630, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 20, 2026).

AbbVie used Premise Health, a third-party healthcare provider, to conduct Plaintiff’s medical screening. During the screening, Premise Health nurses asked Plaintiff to complete a written questionnaire and to undergo a physical examination. “Section U” of the questionnaire asked for Plaintiff’s genetic information (specifically, his family medical history), though Plaintiff did not complete that part of the form. Plaintiff claimed that nurses also verbally asked for his family medical history during the physical exam. After the exam, Plaintiff worked at an AbbVie facility in Illinois for four months.

Plaintiff subsequently sued AbbVie under the GIPA, alleging that the company violated Section 25(c)(1) of the statute by “solicit[ing], request[ing], [or] requir[ing] . . . genetic information of a person or a family member of the person . . . as a condition of employment [or] preemployment application.” 410 ILCS 513/25(c)(1).

AbbVie first responded to Plaintiff’s Complaint by moving to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Judge Shah denied AbbVie’s motion to dismiss after determining that the family medical history information sought during the medical screening constituted “genetic information” under the GIPA. See Henry v. AbbVie, Inc., 2024 WL 4278070, at *5-6 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 24, 2024).

AbbVie later moved for summary judgment, arguing that: (1) AbbVie did not request Plaintiff’s genetic information because third-party Premise Health (not AbbVie) conducted the screening; (2) even if AbbVie requested Plaintiff’s genetic information, the request was inadvertent because the medical questionnaire instructed Plaintiff to not disclose genetic information; and (3) AbbVie did not condition Plaintiff’s work status or assignment on any request for his genetic information.

The Court’s Decision

The Court granted AbbVie’s motion for summary judgment. While the Court was not persuaded by AbbVie’s first two arguments, it concluded that AbbVie’s third argument warranted dismissal of Plaintiff’s GIPA claim.

Request for Genetic Information

The Court first considered whether AbbVie can be characterized as having requested Plaintiff’s family medical history despite third-party Premise Health having conducted the medical screening. In answering in the affirmative, the Court relied on the GIPA’s incorporation of certain protections found in the federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (“GINA”). See 410 ILCS 513/25(a) (“An employer … shall treat genetic testing and genetic information in such a manner that is consistent with the requirements of federal law, including but not limited to [GINA].”). The Court cited a regulation promulgated under GINA providing that an employer that requires employees or applicants to undergo medical examinations “must tell health care providers not to collect genetic information, including family medical history, as part of a medical examination intended to determine the ability to perform a job.” 29 C.F.R. § 1635.8(d). Based on this federal regulation, the Court concluded that AbbVie “[n]ot telling Premise Health to elicit genetic information is not enough; the [GIPA] requires an affirmative instruction not to elicit it.” Henry, 2026 WL 788630, at *5.

Inadvertent Disclosure

AbbVie’s second argument turned on the GIPA’s “inadvertent exception,” which states that “inadvertently requesting family medical history by an employer … does not violate this Act.” 410 ILCS 513/25(g). The Court observed that AbbVie’s health questionnaire advised Plaintiff to “not provide any genetic information, including family medical history.” Henry, 2026 WL 788630, at *6 (citation omitted). Thus, the Court held that the inadvertent exception barred Plaintiff’s claim to the extent it was premised on the written questionnaire. See id. (“The disclaimer on AbbVie’s form was enough to make any disclosure on the form inadvertent.”). But the Court determined that the exception did not necessarily bar Plaintiff’s claim to the extent it was premised on nurses orally asking for his family medical history. See id. (“[T]he written disclaimer in the form does not necessarily mean that [Plaintiff] knew that he should not disclose genetic information in response to verbal questions during his physical exam.”) (emphasis added).

Request as a Condition of Employment

Finally, the Court turned to AbbVie’s argument that Plaintiff’s claim failed because any request for his family medical history was not a condition of his employment. See 410 ILCS 513/25(c)(1) (an employer may not “solicit, request, [or] require … genetic information of a person or a family member of the person … as a condition of employment [or] preemployment application”) (emphasis added). The Court agreed with AbbVie and granted the company’s motion for summary judgment on this basis, holding that no genuine issue of material fact existed regarding AbbVie’s request for Plaintiff’s family medical history not having been a condition of his employment. The Court further noted that “the request for genetic information on the written questionnaire was not a condition of [Plaintiff’s] employment, for the simple fact that [Plaintiff] did not fill out that section and it did not affect his employment with AbbVie.” Henry, 2026 WL 788630, at *6.

Moreover, the Court concluded that even if Plaintiff was required to undergo a medical exam to be eligible to work at AbbVie, that did not mean that the verbal request for his family medical history (made during the exam) was a condition of his employment. See id. at *7. The Court thus recognized an important distinction between (i) AbbVie requiring Plaintiff to undergo a medical screening as a condition of employment and (ii) AbbVie specifically requesting Plaintiff’s family medical history as a condition of employment. See id. (“[T]hat [Plaintiff] could not decline to complete his medical surveillance does not create a genuine dispute over whether the verbal request during his exam was a condition of his employment. The undisputed evidence is that a contractor could decline parts of the surveillance and still have the surveillance considered completed.”). Accordingly, because AbbVie did not condition Plaintiff’s employment on a request for his genetic information, the Court granted summary judgment in the company’s favor.

Takeaways For Companies

As noted in a prior blog post, recent decisions suggest that courts may be hesitant to dismiss GIPA claims (especially at the pleading stage). Given the GIPA statute’s strict penalty provision – under which statutory damages can quickly become significant ($2,500 per negligent violation and $15,000 per intentional or reckless violation, see 410 ILCS 513/40(a)(1)-(2)) – we have advised employers to ensure they comply with the statute regarding any health screenings they ask applicants or employees to complete (including by explicitly advising applicants and employees not to disclose their family medical histories during the screenings).

In this plaintiff-friendly litigation landscape, the Henry decision comes as welcome news for GIPA defendants and companies that have employees undergo medical screenings. Importantly, Henry suggests that an employer does not necessarily violate the GIPA by requesting an employee’s genetic information “as a condition of employment” by merely directing her to undergo a medical exam (during which the employee may or may not be asked to provide her family medical history).

March 31, 2026March 31, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Announcing The Launch Of The Duane Morris California, New York, And Illinois Class Action Reviews – 2026

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

We’re excited to officially announce the release of the all-new California, New York, and Illinois Class Action Reviews, which are comprehensive new desk reference resources designed to help legal professionals and businesses better understand the evolving landscape of class action law in three of the most influential jurisdictions in the United States. California, Illinois, and New York are class action epicenters where a significant number of class actions are filed each year.

Class action litigation continues to play a critical role in shaping consumer protection statutes, employment law obligations, and corporate accountability duties. With each state bringing its own nuances, staying informed and ahead of these risks can be a challenge. The Duane Morris Class Action Team created this new collection of desk references to simplify that process, and offering clear, practical insights into the rules, trends, and key considerations that define class action practice in California, New York, and Illinois.

Each volume in the series dives deep into state-specific procedures, recent case developments, and strategic considerations. Whether you’re navigating complex litigation, advising clients, or simply seeking to expand your legal knowledge, these resources provide accessible, up-to-date guidance you can rely on. We’re proud to offer a resource that supports better decision-making and deeper understanding in an increasingly complex legal environment.

The California, New York, and Illinois Class Action Reviews – 2026 are now available. We invite you to explore the series and discover how it can support your work and enhance your perspective on class action law. You can find the California Class Action Review here, the New York Class Action Review here, and the Illinois Class Action Review here.

Stay tuned to the Class Action Weekly Wire for more information on these new additions to the Duane Morris Class Action Review series.

March 30, 2026March 30, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Overtime Case Loses Pulse: New York Federal Court Finds Medical School Researchers Are Learned Professionals Exempt From FLSA And Denies Bid For Collective Action Certification

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Elizabeth Underwood, and Olga A. Romadin

Duane Morris Takeaways: On March 26, 2026, Judge Paul Engelmayer of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order denying certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) collective action brought by a study coordinator alleging that his employer, a medical school, misclassified him and a group of similarly-situated individuals in Castillo, et al. v. Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Inc. et al., No. 24 Civ. 00984, 2026 WL 834712 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2026). Following discovery, the Court found that a higher standard for the first step of the conditional certification process was warranted, and on review of evidence submitted by the defendants as well as the plaintiff, it declined to certify the collective action, concluding that the differences in coordinators’ duties precluded a collective action.

Case Background

Plaintiff, a researcher in the Cognitive Neurophysiology Laboratory of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a medical school based in New York, brought a collective action against the College and three related entities, including a teaching college and the schools’ parent corporations, alleging that they had misclassified study and research coordinators as “learned professionals” exempt from overtime under the FLSA. Id. at *3.

The College filed a motion to dismiss Castillo’s amended complaint in July 2024, arguing that it was not an “employer” under the FLSA and NYLL, but the Court found this unavailing and denied the motion, and the parties proceeded to discovery. Id. at *1. Castillo then moved for conditional certification under the FLSA, seeking to encompass a collective of current and former employees working as research and study coordinators for the College of Medicine and its related entities who he alleged were not compensated for overtime work. Id. Castillo also sought to toll the FLSA statute of limitations period and asked the Court to authorize notice to individuals employed by the defendants as far back as three years. Id.

The District Court’s Decision

The Court found that, in light of the substantial discovery between the parties, the plaintiff faced a higher threshold requirement of making a “modest plus” factual showing in step one of the Second Circuit’s two-step process to certify a collective action under the FLSA, which it ruled Castillo had failed to meet because evidence submitted by both parties was not convincing that a collective of similarly-situated individuals existed. Id. at *5.

In its analysis, the Court noted that classifying a category of employees as learned professionals exempt under the FLSA is not, on its own, enough for a finding of a “common policy, plan, or practice” to find them to be “similarly situated.” Id. at 6. Plaintiffs have to show a uniform misclassification by identifying individuals with similar duties and responsibilities, and Castillo had failed to do so here because his reliance on two declarations and six job descriptions lacked the weight and detail necessary to account for the work of hundreds of individuals in dozens of departments and programs across the institutions. Id. at *7-8.

The Court was further swayed by the defendants’ evidence of substantial job descriptions showing a variety of duties and responsibilities both demonstrating variation and fitting into the learned professional exemption. Id. at *8-9. Defendants produced 49 job descriptions demonstrating that coordinators’ duties ran the gamut—while some were primarily tasked with data collection, others were responsible for developing clinical studies, making medical recommendations, or engaging with patients—and had “differing levels of intellectual rigor” and educational requirements. Id.

Finally, the Court found that Castillo’s reliance on the deposition testimony of the College’s vice president of human resources actually bolstered the defendants’ position that the duties and responsibilities of coordinators vary widely from one position to the next, undermining his argument that they are similarly situated and thus eligible for conditional certification. Id. at *10-11.

Implications For Employers

This decision offers several practical takeaways for employers in fields where workers may fall under an FLSA exemption. Employers are well-served by maintaining and cataloging detailed job descriptions that accurately reflect the duties and educational requirements of each position.

The Court’s decision also highlights the strategic value of the “modest plus” standard for defendants facing FLSA conditional certification motions. Where pre-certification discovery has already taken place, defendants in many circuits may involve this heightened standard and submit their own evidence to demonstrate that putative class members are not similarly situated with respect to their job duties and requirements.

March 26, 2026March 26, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Illinois Appellate Court Affirms Corporate Officers Who Did Not Knowingly Permit IWPCA Underpayment Violations Are Not Employers

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Gregory Tsonis, and George J. Schaller

Duane Morris Takeaways: On March 17, 2026, in People ex. rel. Ill. DOL v. Quality Therapy & Consultation, Inc., et al., 2026 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 594 (1st Dist. 2026), the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the circuit court’s decision finding corporate officers were not “employers” as defined in section 2 of the Illinois Wage Payment And Collection Act (“IWPCA”), the corporate officers had not knowingly permitted underpayments, and accordingly, the corporate officers were not liable under Section 13 of the IWPCA. Justice Margaret S. McBride authored the opinion on behalf of the Appellate Court.

The decision in Quality Therapy protects corporate decision-makers from personal and strict liability where those decision-makers do not “knowingly permit” a corporation, or such an employer, to violate provisions of the IWPCA.

Case Background

In 1996, Quality Therapy and Consultation, Inc. was founded by Frances M. Parise and John Parise (collectively “the Parises”). Quality Therapy, 2026 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 594,at *2. Quality Therapy provided occupational therapy, speech therapy, and physical therapy services in Illinois to long-term care facilities. Frances Parise acted as Quality Therapy’s president and secretary whereas John Parise was the chief executive officer, and each owned 50% of Quality Therapy and shared authority for business decisions. Id. at *2-3.

After Quality Therapy incurred substantial legal fees from a 2015 federal investigation into its Medicare billing practices and experienced a slow in payments from a primary client, the State of Illinois, Quality Therapy’s profit margins shifted into the negative. Id. at *3-4. In September 2017, Quality Therapy, as a result of the negative margins, could not meet its payroll obligations and issued a WARN Act notice to its employees, “advising that the business would close and all employment would cease in 60 days.” Id. at *4.

Thereafter Quality Therapy informed staff they would not receive their September wages and Quality Therapy was closing on September 30, 2017. Id. Throughout September, the Illinois Department of Labor (the “Department”) received the first of “93 wage applications from [former] employees that would eventually total $550,496, exclusive of statutory penalties.” See id. at *5.

Quality Therapy relied on a bank line of credit to fund payroll on a timely basis, and after the Parises notified the bank that Quality Therapy was closing, the bank immediately called the corporation’s line of credit and froze all funds on hand. Id. Quality Therapy never regained control of its bank account and was unable to access any of its money to pay its employees.

Circuit Court Case Background

In December 2019, the Department filed a three-count complaint, which was later amended in February 2020, and directed individual counts against Quality Therapy, as well as Frances and John Parise, that each knowingly permitted Quality Therapy’s underpayments of unpaid wages and other compensation. The Department maintained all three defendants met the definition of employer under the IWPCA. Id. at *7.

Quality Therapy had been dissolved and was found in default. The Parises moved for summary judgment on the amended complaint and argued that the Illinois’ Supreme Court decision in Andrews v. Kowa Printing Corp., 217 Ill. 2d 101 (2005), “precluded a corporate officer’s individual liability under section 2 of the Wage Act.” Quality Therapy, 2026 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 594, at *7-8. The Department responded that “[the Parises] each acted directly or indirectly in [Quality Therapy’s] interest, which made them ‘employers’ within the meaning of section 2.” Id. at *8

The circuit court denied summary judgment and then presided over a two-day bench trial focusing on Quality Therapy’s ability to pay. Id. The circuit court entered default judgment against Quality Therapy, but, the circuit court rejected “the Department’s argument that the Parises were ‘employers’” as defined in section 2 of the IWPCA, and found that “only [Quality Therapy] was the wage claimants’ employer under section 2.” Id. at *8. The circuit court also denied the claims against the Parises under section 2 and found “[t]he only proper [IWPCA] claim brought under the pleadings against [the Parises] is grounded in” section 13 of the IWPCA. Id. The circuit court reasoned that Frances and John Parise, as corporate officers of Quality Therapy, had not knowingly permitted the underpayments and were not liable under section 13 since Quality Therapy was incapable of meeting its payroll. Id.

The Department appealed on the grounds that “the circuit court erred in finding that the Parises were not employers with Section 2.” The Department acknowledged its argument on appeal ran contrary to the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in Andrews, 217 Ill. 2d 101, but the Department contended that the 2011 amendment to section 13 of the IWPCA “impliedly amended section 2 [of the IWPCA] and superseded Andrews.” Quality Therapy, 2026 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 594, at *9.

The Appellate Court Decision

The Appellate Court affirmed the circuit court’s holding that the Parises were not employers within section 2 of the IWPCA. The Appellate Court, applying the Andrews precedent and interpreting “the statutory language,” concluded “that the amendment to section 13 had no effect whatsoever on section 2” of the IWPCA. Id. at *11.

The Appellate Court rejected the Department’s argument that the 2011 amendment to the IWPCA blended sections 2 and 13 such that it “would render anyone who had a decision making role in payment decisions personally liable for unpaid wages and final compensation.” Id. at *9. The Appellate Court explained the two sections contained distinct definitions, standards, and terms, and presumed that “the legislature did not intend, inconvenient, absurd, or unjust consequences.” Id. at *10.

The Department’s appeal focused on the last clause of section 2 stating that “any person or group of persons acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee” is deemed an “employer” for purposes of the IWPCA. Id. at *11 (quoting 820 ILCS § 115/2). The Department asserted the last clause of section 2 should be read “in conjunction with section 13.”

At issue was the underlined language, added to section 13 in the 2011 amendment:

“In addition to an individual who is deemed to be an employer pursuant to section 2 of this Act, any officers of a corporation or agents of an employer who knowingly permit such employer to violate the provisions of this Act shall be deemed to be the employers of the employees of the corporation.” 820 ILCS § 115/13.

The Appellate Court disagreed that the 2011 amendment to section 13 “effectively modified section 2 and dramatically changed a corporate decision maker’s potential liability for wages.” Id. at *11-12. The Appellate Court reasoned that the IWPCA imposes liability on “two separate and distinct definitions of ‘employer’” because “[i]f there was no distinction between the liability of the corporation and the individual officer, then there would be no reason to have two separate definitions of what constitutes an ‘employer.’” Quality Therapy, 2026 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 594at *12-13 (citing Elsener v. Brown, 2013 IL App (2d) 1209209 ¶ 66).

The Appellate Court also rejected the Department’s expansive interpretation of section 2 and section 13 as “unpersuasive.” Id. at *13. Notably, the Appellate Court cited the Illinois Supreme Court’s language in Andrews, which acknowledged “the breadth of the language” in section 2 was “confounding” because when read literally, it would “make an ‘employer’ out of every person who possesses even a modicum of authority over another employee, from the CEO to the head of the maintenance staff, as such persons undeniably act ‘directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee.’” Andrews, 217 Ill 2d. at 107. Accordingly, following the Illinois Supreme Court, the Appellate Court opined that “[a] literal reading [of that clause] would result in absurdity or unjustness in part because of an employer’s strict liability for wages.” Quality Therapy, 2026 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 594at *13.

Various other reasons supported the Appellate Court’s decision. Andrews, the Appellate Court noted, has been consistently applied without “any court or litigant suggesting that the analysis was abrogated by the amendment to section 13 that took effect in 2011.” Id. at *16 (collecting cases following Andrews.) Additionally, the Appellate Court noted that the legislature’s drafted language across both relevant sections of the IWPCA were not constructed with “parallel wording” nor a declaration of an intent to change section 2’s meaning for the phrase “any person or group of persons.” Id. at *18. Following the Department’s interpretation of the IWPCA, the Appellate Court reasoned, would upend “well-established principles of corporate law” and “create personal liability for shareholders, officers, managers, and supervisory employees, regardless of the precision with which corporate formalities are observed, and would remove the fundamental protections afforded by long-standing principles of corporate law.” Id. at *21-22.

Consequently, the Appellate Court found “the amendment to section 13 maintains the framework of the [IWPCA] – it did not alter the general definition set out in section 2 nor did it modify liability under section 13.” Id. at *20.

Finally, the Appellate Court also dismissed the Department’s “new argument on appeal” that it could rely on a self-adopted regulation “which blends sections 2 and 13 based on the Department’s reading of the amendment.” Id. at *22. The Appellate Court found the Department’s interpretation was not well founded and the regulation was “also flawed because it is not based on the new, clear prefatory clause in section 13.” Id. at *26-27.

Accordingly, the Appellate Court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment.

Implications For Employers

Quality Therapy draws a line in the sand delineating when a corporate decisionmaker meets the definition of “employer” under section 2 of the IWPCA. The Appellate Court relied on longstanding Illinois Supreme Court precedent to find the 2011 amendment to section 13 of the IWPCA did not alter the scope of section 2 of the IWPCA.

Employer’s facing claims for violations of the IWPCA must ensure they comply with the payment provisions of the IWPCA. However, protections for corporate-decision makers remain intact, and merely being in a decision-making role with respect to payment decisions is insufficient to establish personal liability for unpaid wages and final compensation under the IWPCA.

Instead, Quality Therapy establishes that only those corporate decision makers who “knowingly permit” an employer to violate provisions of the IWPCA shall be also deemed an “employer of the employees of the corporation” pursuant to section 13 of the IWPCA.

March 25, 2026March 25, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Maryland Federal District Court Finds That Oral Consent Is Sufficient To Make Telemarketing Calls Using A Prerecorded Voice

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Anna Sheridan, and Ryan T. Garippo

Duane Morris Takeaways: On March 20, 2026, in Bradley, et al. v. DentalPlans.com, No. 20-CV-010904, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59569 (D. Md. Mar. 20, 2026), Judge Brandan Hurson of the U.S. District Court for District of Maryland decertified a certified class action and granted summary judgment on a named plaintiff’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) claim. The decision is premised on the legal conclusion that the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) lacked the authority to interpret the TCPA’s consent provisions to require prior express written consent for telemarketing calls and continues the trend of courts which are challenging the FCC’s longstanding monopoly to interpret the statute.

Case Background

DentalPlans operates a “direct-to-consumer marketplace” that sells dental savings plans, including plans offered by Cigna. In November 2018, Deborah Bradley called DentalPlans to enroll in a plan and the representative asked her whether the company had her consent to contact her using “automated dialing system or prerecorded message.” Bradley, et al. v. DentalPlans.com, No. 20-CV-01094, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10050, at *3 (D. Md. June 6, 2024). Bradley ultimately provided such consent and signed up for a dental discount plan with Cigna.

In September 2019, however, Bradley spoke to another DentalPlans representative and told that representative that she did not want her dental plan to automatically renew. As a result, DentalPlans started placing prerecorded calls to Bradley which informed her that “her membership was ending soon and that she could renew her plan.” After Bradley’s plan expired, she continued to receive prerecorded calls which “attempted to ‘win back’ [her] business by encouraging her to repurchase her Cigna plan with DentalPlans.” Id. at *5. In total, DentalPlans placed 10 “win back” calls to Bradley prior to the filing of the action.

As a result of these calls, on April 28, 2020, Bradley filed a putative class action lawsuit under the TCPA, alleging that the calls constituted unauthorized telemarketing calls using prerecorded messages. The crux of Bradley’s argument was that because these calls allegedly constituted “telemarketing” the applicable FCC regulations required prior express written consent, and oral consent would not suffice. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2). The court agreed with Bradley’s interpretation of the regulation, granted class certification, and certified a class comprised in part of “any consumer who signed up by telephone.” Id. at *27. Bradley then sent notice to the class members and the parties continued to litigate the case.

DentalPlans ultimately filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order granting class certification. In that motion, Dental Plans argued, inter alia, that the court’s reliance on 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2) was misplaced following the U.S. Supreme Court’s mandate that district courts are “not bound by the FCC’s interpretation of the TCPA.” McLaughlin Chiropractic Assocs., Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. 146, 168 (2025). The parties then briefed that issue.

The Court’s Decision

In a thorough 24-page opinion, Judge Hurson walked through the proper interpretation of the phrase “prior express consent” as used in the TCPA and the scope of Congress’s delegation to the FCC.

In so doing, Judge Hurson turned to the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, 127 F.4th 303, 312 (11th Cir. 2025), which explained that the “TCPA gives the FCC only the authority to ‘reasonably define’ the TCPA’s consent-provisions” and not create a non-statutory consent regime. Judge Hurson, therefore, reasoned that because the phrase “prior express written consent” was not contained in the statute, the proper interpretation of the statute’s actual language hinged on the authority that Congress delegated to the FCC.

Similarly, Judge Hurson looked to the Fifth Circuit’s very recent decision in Bradford v. Sovereign Pest Control of Texas, Inc., 167 F.4th 809, 812 (5th Cir. 2026), which held the TCPA provides “no basis for concluding that telemarketing calls require prior express written consentbut not oral consent.” (emphasis in original).

Based on these opinions, because the “written consent” language does not appear in the statute, Judge Hurson concluded that Congress needed to delegate the interpretation of the TCPA to the FCC for its current interpretation to stand. But no such delegation is contained in the TCPA. As a result, the “best interpretation” of the statute was that “express consent” is the only requirement imposed by the TCPA, even if the consent is obtained orally.

Therefore, because Bradley provided oral consent to DentalPlans receive such to prerecorded messages when she signed up for her dental plan, she (and, the class) had no viable claims. The court, accordingly, granted summary judgment on Bradley’s individual claim and decertified the previously certified class action.

Implications For Companies

The Bradley decision continues an important trend for companies making telemarketing calls to consumers.

As we explained here, when the Fifth Circuit decided Bradford, the written consent requirement has long been thought of as one of the hallmarks of the FCC’s regulatory regime and is often used by the plaintiff’s bar to assert technical violations of the TCPA even where it is clear that a customer approved of such calls. But the current trend shows that the underlying regulatory scheme is quickly eroding with each decision that passes.

Nevertheless, the decisions in Bradford and Bradley represent only the middle ground on these issues. Other courts would go further and hold that Congress’s entire delegation of any of its authority “run[s] afoul of the nondelegation doctrine, since there are no delimitations on the discretion it grants the” FCC. McGonigle v. Pure Green Franchise Corp., No. 25-CV-61164, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8059, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 15, 2026). Thus, the landscape of positions on such issues is wide ranging and changing by the day.

As a result of this shifting landscape, corporate counsel, and companies engaged in telemarketing, should continue to monitor this blog to stay apprised of any updates as new decisions continue to modify the FCC’s longstanding interpretation of the TCPA.

March 24, 2026March 24, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Announcing The Duane Morris ERISA Class Action Review – 2026!

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

Duane Morris Takeaway: The surge of class action litigation filed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq., over the last several years persisted in 2025, with class action litigators in the plaintiffs’ bar continuing to focus on challenges ERISA fiduciaries’ management of 401(k) and other retirement plans. Plaintiffs continue to assert that ERISA fiduciaries breached their fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty by, among other things, offering expensive or underperforming investment options and charging participants excessive recordkeeping and administrative fees. Hundreds of fee and expense class actions have been filed since 2020, driven by a number of familiar plaintiffs’ class action law firms alongside some new entrants into the space.

To that end, the class action team at Duane Morris is pleased to present the 2026 edition of the ERISA Class Action Review. We hope it will demystify some of the complexities of ERISA class action litigation and keep corporate counsel updated on the ever-evolving nuances of these issues. We hope this book – manifesting the collective experience and expertise of our class action defense group – will assist our clients by identifying developing trends in the case law and offering practical approaches in dealing with consumer fraud class action litigation.

Click here to bookmark or download a copy of the ERISA Class Action Review – 2026 e-book.

Check back to listen to the Class Action Weekly Wire podcast episode on ERISA class action trends coming soon!

March 24, 2026March 24, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Nevada Federal Court Certifies A $3 Million Dollar TCPA Class Action Against Individual Nevada Realtor

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Ryan T. Garippo

Duane Morris Takeaways: On March 13, 2026, in Garvey, et al. v. Gaitan, No. 23-CV-00920, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53447 (D. Nev. Mar. 13, 2026), Judge Andrew Gordon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada certified a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) class action against an individual realtor for violation of the statute’s prohibition against consentless prerecorded voice messages. The decision serves as a cautionary tale for companies and their individual agents, particularly those entities engaged in direct-to-consumer marketing, to consult experienced TCPA counsel in connection with their marketing campaigns to limit their potential exposure.

Case Background

In 2023, Britney Gaitan, a realtor based in Las Vegas, used an online third-party service to accumulate the homeowner contact information for home sellers whose online real estate listings were either withdrawn or expired. Gaitan then uploaded that list into a software that allowed her to send a prerecorded ringless voicemail message to the list of the home sellers she created. As a result, on March 3, 2023, and March 16, 2023, Gaitan sent these prerecorded voice messages to everyone on her list, including Wayne Garvey, one of the homeowners. Gaitan had no documentation that she received prior consent before placing these ringless voicemail messages.

Garvey ultimately filed suit against Gaitan alleging that she violated the TCPA’s prohibition on consentless prerecorded voice messages codified at 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). Garvey also sought to maintain the case as a class action and represent the owners of the 983 unique cell phone numbers that were called 1,983 times over the course of the two days. Put differently, Garvey ultimately asked the court to certify a class worth up to $2,974,500 or $1,500 per call.

The Court’s Ruling

On March 13, 2026, Chief Judge Andrew Gordon granted Plaintiff’s motion and certified a class against Gaitan. Although Gaitan raised arguments in response to many of the necessary elements for a plaintiff to certify a class action, the dispute largely hinged on Rule 23’s predominance requirement — i.e., whether a common questions of law or fact predominate over issues affecting only certain individual class members. To that end, Gaitan argued that four individualized issues would predominate.

First, Gaitan asserted that individualized inquiries were required to determine whether any class member actually listened to the voicemail. The problem, however, is that “Gaitan cite[d] no law that states a recipient must listen to the voicemail to suffer an injury under the TCPA.” Garvey, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53447, at *12. To the contrary, the Federal Communications Commission (the “FCC”) only requires that a prerecorded voicemail must be “completed” to implicate the statute, and Garvey submitted such common proof via expert testimony. In short, the court concluded that these completed calls are “a central, common question of the class’s TCPA claims that predominates over any individualized issues.” Id. at *15.

Second, Gaitan asserted the same argument (i.e., an individualized issue as to whether any class member listened to the call) but repurposed it under the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III of the U.S. Constitution. For the same reason, the court concluded that because Gaitan could not cite “any law that the putative class members need to listen to the prerecorded message to be injured under the TCPA . . . they have Article III standing if Gaitan used a prerecorded voice in her ringless voicemail drops when calling their cell phones, and they need not prove any other harm.” Id. at *18. This argument was overruled.

Third, Gaitan asserted that there was individualized inquires as to whether any given class member consented to receive prerecorded voice messages. As the court aptly observed, Gaitan “indicated that she has no documentation showing that she obtained consent from any putative class members.” Id. at *19. Gaitan tried to point to the terms of the multiple listing service (“MLS”), which supposedly require a homeowner to provide his or her phone number to create a listing, and argued this action constitutes consent to receive such calls. Although the court was unconvinced, it correctly observed that the consent defense would apply to the entire class and thus “Gaitan has not provided evidence that determining whether some MLS users consented to being contacted about their property is an individualized issue.” Id. at *20.

Fourth, Gaitan asserted that individualized inquiries were required to determine whether any individual owner of a telephone number was a “residential telephone line” within the meaning of the TCPA. The primary problem, however, is that residential telephone subscriber status is not an element of a claim under Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) unlike other sections of the TCPA. In other words, this argument was wholly inapplicable and “does not defeat class certification.” Id. at *21.

As a result, once the realtor’s most significant objection to class certification was overruled, it was a near forgone conclusion that a class would be certified and thus the court proceeded to grant Garvey’s motion.

Implications For Companies

There are multiple cautionary messages embedded in Gaitan for those engaged in direct-to-consumer marketing. The most salient three takeaways are listed below.

The first (and, most important) lesson of Gaitan is to obtain “express consent” prior to making calls using an artificial or prerecorded voice message. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A). It can be difficult to defend a TCPA class action without a consent defense and Gaitan is no different.

The second lesson is that TCPA liability does not only attach to companies but may also be applied “to any person within the United States” who makes such calls. Id. Here, Britney Gaitan is the sole defendant facing TCPA liability and thus Gaitan’s personal assets are likely on the line for any resulting judgment. But that is not the end of the story. Many similar agencies have indemnification agreements with their agents, which require the agency to pay for the liabilities incurred by the agent. To the extent such an agreement exists here, both Gaitan and her agency may have exposure for this TCPA liability.

The third lesson is to ensure that any TCPA defense strategy is prophylactic in nature and crafted in collaboration with defense counsel well versed in this space. In this case, Gaitan raised arguments based on wholly inapplicable portions of the statute or asserted defenses with little chance of success given the facts of the dispute. If Gaitan consulted with experienced defense counsel in advance of the calls, then this situation could have been avoided. But once the calls are made, the best course of action is for a TCPA defendant to contact experienced defense counsel to help navigate any resulting class actions.