Jennifer A. Riley – Page 4 – Class Action Defense

December 6, 2023 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

The 2023-2024 Judicial Hellholes Report From The American Tort Reform Association Ranks The Worst Jurisdictions For Defendants

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

Duane Morris Takeaways: Annually the American Tort Reform Association (“ATRA”) publishes its “Judicial Hellholes Report,” focusing on litigation issues and identifying jurisdictions likely to have unfair and biased administration of justice. The ATRA recently published its 2023-2024 Report and for the first time in the history of the report, the ATRA ranked two jurisdictions at the top of the list – both Georgia and Pennsylvania, specifically the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas – as the most challenging venues for defendants. Readers can find a copy here and the executive summary here.

The Judicial Hellholes Report is an important read for corporate counsel facing class action litigation because it identifies jurisdictions that are generally unfavorable to defendants. The Report defines a “judicial hellhole” as a jurisdiction where judges in civil cases systematically apply laws and procedures in an unfair and unbalanced manner, generally to the disadvantage of defendants. The Report is a “must read” for anyone litigating class actions and making decisions about venue strategy.

The 2023 Hellholes

In its recently released annual report, the ATRA identified 9 jurisdictions on its 2023 hellholes list – which, in order, include, tied at number one: (1) Georgia – (the defending “champion” from the top of the 2022 list, with massive verdicts bogging down business and more liability expanding decisions issued by the Georgia Supreme Court); and (1) Pennsylvania (especially in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania); (3) Cook County (as a “no-injury required” hotspot and lawsuits stemming from the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act); (4) California (with Proposition 65 lawsuits thriving and a huge overall volume of lawsuits, in addition to Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) litigation, lemon law litigation, and environmental hotbed); (5) New York (with “no-injury” consumer class action lawsuits and massive verdicts); (6) South Carolina (particularly in asbestos litigation, with problems related to bias against corporate defendants, unwarranted sanctions, low evidentiary requirements, liability expanding rulings, unfair trials, severe verdicts, and a willingness to overturn or modify jury verdicts to benefit plaintiffs); (7) Lansing, Michigan (particularly due to liability-expanding decisions by the Michigan Supreme Court and pro-plaintiff legislative activity); (8) Louisiana (with long-running costal litigation and insurance claim fraud litigation); and (9) St. Louis, Missouri (with focuses on junk science in the courtrooms and nuclear verdicts).

According to the ATRA’s analysis, these venues are less than optimal for corporate defendants and often attract plaintiffs’ attorneys, particularly for the filing of class action lawsuits. Therefore, corporate counsel should take particular care if they encounter a class action lawsuit filed in one of these venues.

The 2024 “Watch List”

The ATRA also included 3 jurisdictions on its “watch list,” including Kentucky (the ATRA noted that Kentucky, as a newcomer to the list, has been reported as having some lawyers resorting to unethical measures to secure wins); New Jersey (with a powerful trial bar), and Texas (particularly the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District, which the ATRA opined has developed a reputation for being pro-plaintiff and pro-liability expansion).

In addition, the ATRA recognized that several jurisdictions made significant positive improvements this year, highlighting decisions by the New Hampshire and Delaware Supreme Courts, which rejected no-injury medical monitoring claims, the New Jersey Appellate Court, which discarded improper expert testimony, the Texas Supreme Court, which rejected manipulation of juries, and the West Virginia Supreme Court, which placed reasonable limits on employer liability.

In addition to court actions, the ATRA also stated that nine state legislatures enacted positive civil justice reforms this year.

Implications For Employers

The Judicial Hellholes Report often mirrors the experience of companies in high-stakes class actions, as Georgia, Pennsylvania, Illinois, California, New York, South Carolina, Michigan, Louisiana, and Missouri are among the leading states where plaintiffs’ lawyers file class actions. These jurisdictions are linked by class certification standards that are more plaintiff-friendly and more generous damages recovery possibilities under state laws.

December 6, 2023 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Maryland Federal Court Reinstates Class Certification In Data Breach Class Action

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

Duane Morris Takeaways: In the proceeding captioned In Re Marriott International Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 8:19-MD-02879, 2023 WL 8247865 (D. Md. Nov. 29, 2023), Judge John Preston Bailey of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification and reinstated several previously-certified classes. The defendant argued that class certification was improper, in part, because the putative class members signed a Choice of Law Provision that contained a class action waiver. Conversely, the plaintiffs contended that the defendant waived its defense based on the Choice of Law Provision. The Court held that (i) the defendant waived its Choice of Law Provision, and (ii) in the absence of an arbitration agreement, the Choice of Law Provision did not override the Rule 23 requirements. For these reasons, this case serves as an important reminder for companies on the importance of the terms of contractual agreements in the context of seeking to arbitrate cases and potentially avoid class or collective actions.

Case Background

In 2016, Marriott purchased Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide (“Starwood”), and inherited Starwood’s IT infrastructure provided by Accenture LLP (“Accenture”) for all Starwood properties. Id. In September 2018, Marriott learned that an unidentified party tried to gain access to the Starwood guest reservation database. After an investigation, Marriott determined Starwood’s database was compromised from July 2014 through September 2018. Id. *1. On November 30, 2018, Marriott disclosed the data breach. Id.

Thereafter, affected consumers filed suit against Marriott and Accenture nationwide. Id. Marriott requested that the actions be consolidated into one multi-district litigation (“MDL”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, where Marriott is headquartered. Id. * 4. The case was consolidated, and the plaintiffs filed their joint MDL Complaint alleging various state law contract, statutory consumer protection, and state law negligence claims. Id. The plaintiffs then moved to certify various classes. Id. *2.

The putative class included members of the Starwood Preferred Guest Program (“SPG”). Id. *2. Members of the SPG program signed a contract that contained a “Choice of Law and Venue” Provision (the “Choice of Law Provision”). Id. The Choice of Law Provision stated that any disputes related to the SPG program would “be handled individually without any class action” and would have exclusive jurisdiction in the State of New York. Id. Therefore, the defendant asserted that Rule 23(a)’s “typicality” requirement was not met because the class members were SPG program members, and the class contained both members and non-members of the SPG program. Id.

The District Court agreed with the defendant, and redefined all classes to include only SPG members. Id. *3. However, by doing so, every putative class member was “someone who had purportedly given up the right to engaged in just such class litigation.” In Re Marriott Int’l, Inc., 78 F.4th 677, 682-83 (4th Cir. 2023). The District Court “did not further consider the import of the class waiver on its certification decision,” id. at 683, and granted certification as to three of the plaintiffs’ Rule 23(b)(3) and four Rule 23(c)(4) damages classes. In Re Marriott Int’l, Inc., 341 F.R.D 128, 172-73 (D. Md. 2022). Subsequently, the defendants appealed.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit held that the District Court erred in failing to address whether or not the SPG members agreed to bar the certification of a class action. In Re Marriott International, 2023 WL 8247865, at *3. The Fourth Circuit vacated the class certification and remanded to the District Court to consider the effect of the Choice of Law Provision on the class. Id.

The District Court’s Decision

The District Court concluded that (i) the defendants waived the Choice of Law Provision, and (ii) absent an arbitration agreement, Rules 23 and 42 prevailed over the parties’ Choice of Law Provision Id. Accordingly, the District Court reinstated the previously-certified classes.

First, the District Court analyzed the plaintiff’s position that the defendants waived the Choice of Law Provision. It opined that “[w]aiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.” United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993) (internal citations omitted). The District Court reasoned that a party “waives a contractual provision when the party takes actions that are inconsistent with the provision.” In Re Marriott International, 2023 WL 8247865, at *4. The District Court held the defense “clearly waived 5/6” of its Choice of Law Provision because the defendants: (1) requested consolidation into an MDL, which “is the antithesis of handling each claim on an individual basis”; (2) stated that “separately litigating each of the 59 related actions” would “offer no benefit” and heighten the burdens of all involved; and (3) stated venue was proper in Maryland and requested that the MDL be assigned to Maryland, which was inconsistent with the New York Choice of Law Provision. Id. As such, the District Court found that the defendants waived the Choice of Law Provision and all terms contained therein. Id.

Second, the District Court held that it was not required to enforce the Choice of Law Provision outside of a binding arbitration provision. Id. *8. The Choice of Law Provision was “patently distinguishable” from “all of the reported cases on contractual class action waivers” because it did not have a mandatory arbitration clause. Id. *7. When parties agree to resolve their case in a non-judicial forum such as arbitration, “the Federal Rules have limited applicability”. Id. *6. However, in the absence of such an agreement, the District Court opined that “[t]he parties cannot by agreement dictate that a district court must ignore the provisions of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Id. *7. The District Court found that Rule 23 and Rule 42 do not “call for consideration of the parties’ preferences,” but rather “furtherance of efficient judicial administration.” Id. Thus, the District Court was not required to enforce the Choice of Law Provision, and held that the plaintiffs did not waive their right to bring a class action claim. Id. *8 *(quoting Martrano v. Quizno’s Franchise Co., 2009 WL 1704469, at *20-21 (W.D. Pa. June 15, 2009)).

Implications For Companies

Companies should proactively review their arbitration agreements and class or collective action waivers to ensure that contractually agreed-upon terms can and will be imposed by a court. Additionally, when faced with multiple nationwide claims, companies should analyze their case defense strategy and make an informed decision before filing and/or joining an MDL. Finally, as part of any acquisition, companies should have their own data security team thoroughly vet and approve the acquired company’s security infrastructure prior to, or shortly after, the acquisition.

December 5, 2023 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

The Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2024 Is Coming Soon!

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

Duane Morris Takeaway: Happy Holidays to our loyal readers of the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog! Our elves are busy at work this holiday season in wrapping up our start-of-the-year kick-off publication – the Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2024. We will go to press in early January, and launch the 2024 Review from our blog and our book launch website.

The 2024 Review builds on the success of last year’s edition. At over 500 pages, the 2024 Review has more analysis than ever before, with an analysis of over 1,100 class certification rulings from federal and state courts over this past year. The Review will be available for download as an E-Book too.

The Review is a one-of-its-kind publication analyzing class action trends, decisions, and settlements in all areas impacting Corporate America, including the substantive areas of antitrust, appeals, the Class Action Fairness Act, civil rights, consumer fraud, data breach, EEOC-Initiated and government enforcement litigation, employment discrimination, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, wage & hour class and collective actions, labor, privacy, procedural issues, product liability and mass torts, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, securities fraud, state court class actions, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. The Review also highlights key rulings on attorneys’ fee awards in class actions, motions granting and denying sanctions in class actions, and the top class action settlement in each area. Finally, the Review provides insight as to what companies and corporate counsel can expect to see in 2024.

We are humbled and honored by the recent review of the Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023 by Employment Practices Liability Consultant Magazine (“EPLiC”) – the review is here. EPLiC said that “The Review must-have resource for in-depth analysis of class actions in general and workplace litigation in particular.” EPLiC continued that “The Duane Morris Class Action Review analyzes class action trends, decisions, and settlements in all areas impacting Corporate America. The Review also highlights key rulings on attorneys’ fee awards in class actions, motions granting and denying sanctions in class actions, and the top class action settlement in a myriad of substantive areas. Finally, the Review provides insight as to what companies and corporate counsel can expect to see in 2023 in terms of filings by the plaintiffs’ class action bar.”

We look forward to providing this year’s edition of the Review to all of our loyal readers in early January. Stay tuned and Happy Holidays!

November 12, 2023November 12, 2023 by Eden Anderson

California Supreme Court Expresses Concern At Estrada Oral Argument About Manageability Of PAGA Claims

By Eden E. Anderson, Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., and Jennifer A. Riley

Duane Morris Takeaways: In a case with significant consequences for employers, the California Supreme Court heard oral argument in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, No. S274340, on November 8, 2023. In Estrada, the Supreme Court will decide whether trial courts have inherent authority to ensure that PAGA claims will be manageable at trial, and to strike or narrow such claims if they cannot be managed appropriately. The Supreme Court signaled during oral argument its concerns with unwieldy PAGA claims that, if tried, would require a series of mini-trials over the course of years. The Supreme Court further expressed concern with ensuring that employers’ due process rights to present affirmative defenses are protected, potentially signaling the issuance of an employer-friendly decision. A decision is expected in the next three months, and has the potential to transform the prosecution and defense of PAGA litigation.

Case Background

Jorge Estrada filed a putative class action and PAGA action against his former employer asserting meal period violations. After two classes comprised of 157 individuals were certified, the parties tried the claims before a judge in a bench trial. The trial court ultimately decertified the classes, finding there were too many individualized issues to support class treatment. Although the trial court awarded relief to four individual plaintiffs, it dismissed the non-individual PAGA claim, concluding it was not manageable.

On appeal, Estrada argued that PAGA claims have no manageability requirement, and the Court of Appeal agreed in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., 76 Cal.App.5th 685 (2022). The Court of Appeal reasoned that class action requirements do not apply in PAGA actions and, therefore, the manageability requirement rooted in class action procedure was inapplicable. Further, the Court of Appeal opined that “[a]llowing courts to dismiss PAGA claims based on manageability would interfere with PAGA’s express design as a law enforcement mechanism.” Id. at 712. The Court of Appeal acknowledged the difficulty that employers and trial courts face with PAGA claims involving thousands of allegedly aggrieved employees, each with unique factual circumstances, but concluded that dismissal for lack of manageability was not an available tool for a trial court to utilize.

Estrada is contrary to the holding in Wesson v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC, 68 Cal.App.5th 746 (2021), and created a split in authority. In Wesson, the trial court struck a PAGA claim as unmanageable, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The claims at issue in Wesson involved the alleged misclassification of 345 store managers. The employer’s exemption affirmative defense turned on individualized issues as to each manager’s performance of exempt versus non-exempt tasks, which varied based on a number of factors including store size, sales volume, staffing levels, labor budgets, store hours, customer traffic, all of which varied across the stores. The split in authority prompted the California Supreme Court to grant review in Estrada, but not Wesson.

Oral Argument At The California Supreme Court

During oral argument on November 8, 2023, several Justices, most prominently Justices Liu and Jenkins, expressed skepticism that a trial court’s inherent powers include the ability to outright strike or dismiss an entire PAGA action for lack of manageability. As Justice Liu commented, permitting trial courts such wide ranging power would shortchange the PAGA statute unless there is an overriding constitutional interest.

Several Justices also acknowledged that an employer has a due process right to present evidence to support its affirmative defenses and that, in certain cases, such evidence presentation might require a series of mini-trials over a period of years and wholly consume a trial court’s resources. Justice Kruger asked questions of Estrada’s counsel that suggested the illogical nature of these issues telling trial courts as to what to do in terms of mini-trials, and how unwieldy such PAGA-related problems would evolve under such a set of principles.

Justice Groban also expressed concern about a PAGA case where multiple Labor Code violations are alleged, hundreds or thousands of employees are at issue, and different work sites and different types of employees ranging from janitors to accountants are implicated. Justice Groban asked why, in that case, a trial court could not just limit the case to the accountants only. Other justices raised similar concerns, with Chief Justice Guerrero asking Estrada’s counsel why the answer is that this is all subject to appellate review.

Implications For Employers

The constellation of the comments from the justices seemingly signals that the California Court may hold that trial courts possess inherent authority to ensure an employer’s right to due process is safeguarded, which necessarily encompasses the right to gauge the manageability of PAGA claims and to narrow them as appropriate. As to whether such authority could include outright dismissal of an entire PAGA case, employers will have to wait and see.

October 18, 2023 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Illinois Federal Court Denies Class Certification In A Nationwide FCRA Lawsuit Due To Issues With Commonality, Adequacy Of Representation, And Predominance

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

Duane Morris Takeaways: In Sgouros v. Transunion Corp., No. 1:14-CV-01850, 2023 WL 6690474 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 12, 2023), Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Plaintiff’s motion for class certification in a Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) case because Plaintiff failed to satisfy the Rule 23 requirements of commonality, adequacy of representation, and predominance. For entities facing FCRA class actions, this decision provides a concise explanation of what factors courts may consider with respect to commonality, adequacy of representation, and predominance in ruling on a motion for class certification.

Case Background

In this litigation, Defendants are collectively a well-known American consumer credit reporting agency. In 2013, Defendants offered a 3-in-1 Credit Report, Credit Score & Debt Analysis for consumers to purchase. The 3-in-1 report included a VantageScore, which, similar to a FICO score, looks at the information in a consumer’s credit report and generates a score to help lenders determine a consumer’s creditworthiness.

On June 10, 2013, Plaintiff purchased a 3-in-1 Credit Report and VantageScore from Defendants. Id. at 1. On the same day he purchased the report, Plaintiff alleged he was denied his desired auto loan because “the credit score the lender was provided was more than 100 points lower than the number contained in the VantageScore [Plaintiff] purchased.” Id.

Plaintiff later testified he knew the VantageScore was “useless” in September 2012, and failed to provide an explanation as to why he purchased a VantageScore nine months after such realization. Id. Plaintiff also testified that, contrary to the allegations in his complaint, he did not buy the score in advance of his search for an auto loan, and “he did not read the TransUnion website content that accompanied the purchase of his VantageScore.” Id.

In 2014, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants alleging violations the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (“MMPA”). Id. Plaintiff sought to represent a nationwide class and a Missouri-based class consisting of all persons “who purchased a VantageScore 1.0 Score through TransUnion Interactive’s website, or its predecessor website, during the period October 1, 2009, to September 1, 2015.” Id.

The Court’s Decision

The Court held that Plaintiff failed to establish commonality, adequacy of representation, and predominance for both the FCRA and MMPA claims under Rule 23(a) and (b), and denied class certification. Id. at 6.

Rule 23(a)(2) – Commonality

Plaintiffs must demonstrate that “there are questions of law or fact common to the class” to meet the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2). Id. at 3. Importantly, Plaintiff is required to “demonstrate that the class members ‘have suffered the same injury,’” and that the claims are “capable of classwide resolution.” Id. (citing Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011)). Plaintiff asserted five questions to establish commonality. Id. Overall, the Court found Plaintiff’s commonality questions were insufficient because they “merely restate[d] the core elements of statutory violations” and did not demonstrate “to what extent the class members suffered a common injury.” Id.

Specifically as to the alleged FCRA violations, the “core liability dispute” was whether or not Defendants failed to supply the class “with a credit score . . . that assist[ed] the consumer in understanding the credit scoring assessment of the credit behavior of the consumer and predictions about the future credit behavior of the consumer.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff asserted that the VantageScore could not assist consumers in understanding their credit score assessment “because the VantageScore was not similar enough to a FICO score and or widely used by lenders.” Id. at 4. The Court disagreed. It held that because Plaintiff failed to present any argument or evidence “independent of a comparison to a FICO score,” Plaintiff’s common questions were not “capable of common answers,” and Rule 23(a)’s commonality requirement was not met. Id.

Similarly, “[b]ecause [Plaintiff’s] MMPA common question . . . [was] premised on the same logic as the FCRA claim,” the Court found that “commonality was not met.” Id.

Rule 23(a)(4) – Adequacy of Representation

A named plaintiff must also establish they can adequately serve as a class representative under Rule 23(a)(4). Id. A named plaintiff is inadequate if they “have serious credibility problems” or if they have “antagonistic of conflicting” interests to absent class members. Id. The Court held that Plaintiff was inadequate to represent the class on both the FCRA and MMPA claims due to Plaintiff’s questionable credibility and the inconsistencies in his deposition testimony. Id. at 4-5.

Rule 23(b)(3) – Predominance

The plaintiff must also demonstrate that the putative class claims “predominate over any questions affecting only individual members,” and are “sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.” Id. at 5. The Court found that the FCRA’s statutory requirement of assisting a consumer in understanding their credit score is “necessarily individualized given the inherently personal nature how credit scores are calculated and consumers’ personal behaviors,” and predominance was not met. Id.

Implications For Credit Reporting Companies

This ruling provides a straightforward analysis of what elements courts may find persuasive in ruling on a motion for class certification in an FCRA class action. It ought to be a required read for corporate counsel in any FCRA case.

October 15, 2023 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

D.C. Federal Court Denies Class Certification For COVID-19 Remote Learning Claims Due To Inadequacy Of The Class Representative

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

Duane Morris Takeaways: In Gur-Ravantab, et al. v. Georgetown University, No. 1:22-CV-01038, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179493 (D.D.C. Oct. 5, 2023), Judge Trevor McFadden of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification on the grounds that the named Plaintiff was neither an adequate representative of the proposed class nor even a member of it.

For companies facing motions for certification motions in class actions, this decision is instructive in terms of considerations over the circumstances where a named plaintiff may fall short of satisfying the adequacy requirement under 23(a)(4).

Case Background

The named Plaintiff, Emir Gur-Ravanatab (“Plaintiff”), was a Class of 2020 graduate of Georgetown University. Id. at 1. In March 2020 of his final semester, the COVID-19 pandemic swept the nation. Id. at 2. Defendant, Georgetown University (“Defendant”), like many other schools, announced its transition to remote instruction for the rest of the Spring 2020 semester. Id.

Plaintiff alleged that he entered a contract with the Defendant, and under that contract, Plaintiff paid tuition in exchange for a guarantee of “in-person classroom learning and other services.” Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff alleged that there was a material difference in value between in-person and remote instruction. Therefore, despite Defendant’s transition to remote instruction, Plaintiff was never paid the difference. Id. at 2.

Plaintiff alleged breach of an express and implied contract claims, and an unjust enrichment claim. Id. Plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages, and restitution for his claims. Id. He also moved to certify a class on behalf of other students who similarly formed contracts with Defendant and were enrolled as undergraduate students “during the Spring 2020 semester who paid tuition and Mandatory Fees.” Id. Plaintiff alleged the class covered roughly 7,300 other current and former university students. Id.

The Court’s Decision

The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. It held that the named Plaintiff was not an adequate representative of the class he proposed to certify nor even a member of the class. Id. at 1.

The Court reasoned the requirements of all class action suits are well-settled under Rule 23. Id. at 3. These requirements are known as “numerosity,” “commonality,” “typicality,” and “adequacy.” Id. at 4. Additionally, the Court relied on U.S. Supreme Court precedent that “has ‘repeatedly held’ that ‘a class representative must be a part of the class and possess the same interest and suffer the same injury as the class members.’” Id. After a plaintiff and his proposed class satisfy those requirements, then the plaintiff and the proposed class must fall within one of the three “buckets” of class actions enumerated under Rule 23(b). Id. at 4-5. The Court found Plaintiff “stumbled before reaching Rule 23(b)” as he was “both an inadequate representative of the proposed class, and a non-member” of it. Id. at 5.

The Court focused its ruling on the adequacy prong under Rule 23(a). The Court opined that “[Plaintiff] does not share the same interests as the other class members, and indeed, has a potential conflict of interest with them,” and therefore is “not an adequate class representative.” Id. at 7. Plaintiff suffered two problems, including: (i) Plaintiff’s mother is an employee of the university; and (ii) Plaintiff did not personally pay tuition or mandatory fees. Id. at 7-8. Therefore, the Court determined “he lack[ed] the kind of concrete stake in the outcome of th[e] litigation necessary to be the vigorous advocate the class is entitled to.”

As to potential class conflicts, Plaintiff’s mother was a Turkish language instructor with the university, and hence he had a close familial relationship to a person who may be harmed by a judgment against the university. Id. at 8. Further, Plaintiff testified in his deposition that his parents, including his mother “exert a ‘pretty major’ influence over his decisions.” Id. The Court reasoned that “Rule 23 requires that class representatives be able to engage in arm’s-length dealings with the opposing side” and Plaintiff did not meet that standard. Id. However, the Court acknowledged that this conflict on its own “would not be enough, standing on its own, to defeat adequacy,” but other problems persisted. Id.

Plaintiff’s second problem was he did not share the same interest in this case as the other class members. Id. Plaintiff “sued for a refund of the difference in value between the education he paid for and the one he got,” but Plaintiff “did not pay for an education at all.” Id. The Court considered Plaintiff’s student account as the operative measure for educational payments. Id. at 8-11.

On balance, the Court construed the student account two ways. Either, Plaintiff did “not pay [Defendant] a dime,” Id. at 9, or Plaintiff “got more money out of [Defendant] that semester than he put in.” Id. at 11. Based on the Court’s reasoning, both accountings lead to the same problem, i.e., that Plaintiff “will likely have no compensatory damages to claim,” and “without compensatory damages, [Plaintiff] cannot claim punitive damages either.” Id. Therefore, the Court held that Plaintiff could not obtain meaningful relief, and thus, “he lack[ed] ‘the incentive to represent the claims of the class vigorously.’” Id. As a result of Plaintiff owing no money towards tuition and Mandatory Fees, the Court found he “quite simply is not a member of the proposed class.” Id.

The Court further discussed the second named Plaintiff, Emily Lama, and her exclusion from the class as well because she was “enrolled as a graduate student during the Spring 2020 Semester,” meaning she also did not fit the undergraduate class description. Id. at 11-12.

Accordingly, as there was no named Plaintiff to represent the class, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Id. at 12.

Implications For Companies

Companies confronted with motions for class certification should take note that the court in Gur-Ravantab relied on Plaintiffs’ inability to adequately represent the class based on a fact intensive analysis that disqualified the named Plaintiff as a suitable class representative. Further, from a practical standpoint, companies should carefully evaluate class representatives for unique characteristics that are distinguishable from the proposed class.

October 3, 2023 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

In The Latest Application of the Sixth Circuit’s Novel “Strong Likelihood” Standard, Ohio District Court Denies Plaintiffs’ Motion to Issue Notice of FLSA Overtime Lawsuit

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

Duane Morris Takeaways: On September 27, 2023, District Court Judge Charles E. Fleming in Woods et al. v. First Transit, Inc., et al., 21-cv-739 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 27, 2023) denied plaintiffs’ motion for court-authorized notice of bus drivers’ claims of alleged unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The district court applied the Sixth Circuit’s newly-minted standard to conclude the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a “strong likelihood” exists that they are similarly situated in relevant respects to other employees of the defendant transportation company. The court’s rejection of the plaintiffs’ “self-serving declarations” and consideration of the defendants’ competing evidence illustrates how the Sixth Circuit’s new standard is a game changer for FLSA litigants in Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee and Kentucky.

Case Background

On April 6, 2021, three named plaintiffs filed a class and collective action lawsuit asserting claims of unpaid overtime in violation of the FLSA and Ohio, California and New York state laws. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant failed to pay overtime wages to fixed-route bus drivers for work performed before and after their shifts. The plaintiffs also alleged the defendant deducted 30 minutes’ worth of time from their pay for unpaid meal breaks even when they did not receive uninterrupted break time. After the district granted the defendant’s partial motion to dismiss the New York and California state law claims, only the Ohio state law claims survived. Additionally, only two named plaintiffs remained after one of the named plaintiff s was shown never to have worked as a fixed-route bus driver.

Two individuals filed consents to join the lawsuit as opt-in plaintiffs in October 2021 and a third joined the lawsuit in February 2022.

After approximately six months of fact discovery solely on the issue of conditional certification, the named plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of their claims under the FLSA on June 29, 2022. If granted, the plaintiffs would have authority to issue notice to a collective including any person who drove a fixed bus route for the defendant in any week during the prior three years.

In support of their motion, the plaintiffs submitted sworn declarations of the two named plaintiffs and three putative opt-in plaintiffs, job descriptions, an employee handbook and a user guide for time entry. In opposition to the motion, the defendant submitted sworn declarations of managers at the locations at which the named or opt-in plaintiffs had worked, declarations of corporate human resources and payroll staff and collective bargaining agreements governing fixed-route bus drivers at various locations.

After the parties fully briefed the motion, the district court deferred ruling on the motion until the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its anticipated decision on the standard for conditional certification in FLSA cases.

On May 19, 2023, the Sixth Circuit in Clark v. A&L Homecare and Training Center, LLC, 68 F.4th 1003 (6th Cir. 2023), announced a new standard for determining whether FLSA plaintiffs may issue court-sanctioned notice to other employees. Rejecting the prior standard in which a plaintiff need only make a “modest factual showing” to win court-authorized notice, the Sixth Circuit held that plaintiffs must put forth sufficient evidence to demonstrate a “strong likelihood” exists that they are similarly situated to other employees. Factors relevant to the analysis include whether the potential other plaintiffs performed the same tasks and were subject to the same timekeeping and pay policies as the named plaintiffs. After Clark, the parties submitted supplemental briefs arguing how the new standard applied to the plaintiffs’ pending motion.

The Court’s Decision

Upon weighing the parties’ competing evidence, the district court answered “no” to the question whether a strong likelihood exists that the named plaintiffs experienced the same policies of unpaid overtime wages as other employees of the defendant.

The district court concluded that the plaintiffs did not introduce any evidence of a “company-wide policy” binding on all fixed-route bus drivers that potentially violates the FLSA. The court stated that the only evidence of the alleged unlawful overtime pay practices came in the form of “self-serving declarations” of doubtful credibility. For example, an opt-in plaintiff declared that she worked as a fixed-route bus driver until December 2020. However, the manager who oversaw the opt-in plaintiff’s location declared that no driver at that location drove a fixed bus route. The court reasoned no “strong likelihood” exists that the opt-in plaintiff is similarly situated to the named plaintiffs given that the opt-in plaintiff could not be in the proposed collective of fixed-route bus drivers.

The court also considered the evidence of written policies regarding meal breaks, or the lack thereof, for fixed-route bus drivers. Contrary to the plaintiffs’ allegation of company-wide automatic pay deductions for meal break time, the manager of the location at which one of the named plaintiffs had worked declared that drivers at that location did not even receive meal breaks.

The collective bargaining agreements in evidence showed that different locations of work had different policies governing time entry and breaks for fixed-route bus drivers. For example, a collective bargaining agreement for one location stated that the defendant paid drivers for 15 minutes of time prior to their route to perform pre-shift work. A collective bargaining agreement for another location said the defendant paid drivers 20 minutes for pre-shift work.

In sum, the court reasoned that the evidence revealed dissimilarity in policies and practices concerning compensation for the company’s fixed-route bus drivers. Because the evidence showed employees were subject to different policies concerning key issues such as how they report time, how schedules are set, what period of time is compensable, whether they receive a meal break and how meal breaks are paid, the court concluded the plaintiffs did not satisfy the “strong likelihood” standard announced in Clark to obtain court-authorized notice of their FLSA claims.

Implications For Employers

The district court’s ruling in Woods leaves no doubt that FLSA plaintiffs in the Sixth Circuit face a heightened evidentiary burden to obtain court-authorized notice in the wake of the Sixth Circuit’s new standard in Clark. The district court clarified that the “strong likelihood” standard in Clark is an evidentiary standard, not a pleading standard. The court’s analysis in Woods shows defendants have a genuine opportunity to present evidence to attack the plaintiffs’ efforts to show a common policy of FLSA-violating conduct and thereby block notice to other employees who may expand the scope of the lawsuit exponentially. Employers with operations in the Sixth Circuit ought to use Clark as an opportunity to look anew at their wage and hour policies and practices to guard against the risk of costly and time-consuming FLSA litigation.

October 2, 2023December 1, 2023 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Texas Federal Court Shoots Down Executive Order 14,026

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

Duane Morris Takeaways: On September 26, 2023, in Texas v. Biden, No. 6:22-CV-00004 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 26, 2023), Judge Drew B. Tipton of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted in part and denied in part the States’ Motion for Summary Judgment and enjoined the federal government from enforcing Executive Order 14,026 and the Final Rule against the States of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi and their agencies. Judge Tipton found that the President acted exceeded his authority by issuing Executive Order 14,026 and unilaterally requiring federal contractors to increase their employees’ minimum wage from $10.10 to $15 per hour. Other district courts have considered the President’s authority in issuing Executive Order 14,026, but Judge Tipton is the first federal judge to find that the President exceeded his authority. This ruling hits only the surface of what is yet to come. The parties in other cases have already filed appeals in the Ninth and Tenth Circuits challenging district court opinions that have issued contrary rulings, and the government in this case is bound to appeal this decision to the Fifth Circuit.

Procedural Background

The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (“Procurement Act” or the “Act”) applies to federal and contractor employees. Congress implemented the Act to centralize the process by which various good and services are purchased by agencies on behalf of the government.

On April 21, 2021, President Biden, relying solely on the Act, issued Executive Order 14,026 (“EO 14,026”) to require federal contractors and subcontractors to pay certain employees $15 per hour. EO 14,026 was scheduled to begin on January 30, 2023, with annual increases thereafter. Specifically, in issuing EO 14,026, President Biden invoked his authority to “promote economy and efficiency in procurement by contracting with sources that adequately compensate their workers.” Id. at 5. After engaging in notice-and-comment rulemaking, the U.S. Department of Labor published its Final Rule, Increasing the Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors, on November 24, 2021, implementing EO 14,026 (the Final Rule and EO 14,026 are the “Wage Mandate”). Id.

Three months later, three states – Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi (the “States”) – sued President Biden, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”), and certain DOL executives (collectively the “federal government”) challenging the validity of the Wage Mandate. Id. at 2-3.

The parties cross-filed cross-motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment. The federal government argued generally that two of the Act’s provisions, read together, provide the President with a broad grant of authority to implement policies “that the President considers necessary to foster an economical and efficient system for procuring and supplying goods and services for using property,” including the Wage Mandate. Id. at 13. The States argued that the Act is far more narrow and that it is primarily meant as a means to “centralize and introduce flexibility into government contracting to remedy duplicative contracts and inefficiencies,” which does not include setting the minimum wage for federal contractors. Id.

The District Court’s Decision

The District Court granted in part and denied in part the States’ cross-motion for summary judgment. It found that the States proved that that the President acted “ultra vires,” or beyond his authority in issuing EO 14,026. Judge Tipton enjoined the federal government from enforcing EO 14,026 and the Final Rule against Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi and their agencies.

The District Court agreed with the States and held that Sections 101 and 102 of the Act “read together, unambiguously limit the President’s power to the supervisory role of buying and selling goods.” Id. The District Court found that the Act’s historical context further supported its holding that the President’s authority “does not include a unilateral policy-making power to increase the minimum wage of employees of federal contractors.” Id. at 15.

Judge Tipton further found that the purpose of the Act purpose conflicts with the Wage Mandate. He explained that the Act’s purpose is to provide “a relatively hands-off framework that enables agencies to determine for themselves the quantity and quality of items to procure on behalf of the federal government. It does not confer authority for the President to decree broad employment rules.” Id. at 20. As an example, the District Court compared the Act to two other permissible federal wage statutes – the Davis Bacon Act and the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act. Id. at 20-21. Judge Tipton opined that unlike those two permissible federal wage-statutes, in which Congress expressly gave the Secretary of Labor limited power to tailor the minimum wage of certain classes of federal contractors, the Procurement Act did not permit the President unlimited wage-setting authority. Id. at 21. The District Court concluded that the “Procurement Act’s text, history, purpose and structure limit the President to a supervisory role in policy implementation rather than a unilateral, broad policy-making power to set a minimum wage.” Id. at 22.

The federal government will likely appeal the decision, and the Fifth Circuit will join the Ninth and Tenth Circuits in deciding whether the President exceeded his authority in issuing EO 14,026.

Implications for Employers

The District Court’s decision is a huge win for employers in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi as the federal government is prohibited from enforcing EO 14,026. Companies should stay tuned for the imminent showdown in the Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuit’s on the President’s Authority over increasing the minimum wage for federal contractors and subcontractors.

September 29, 2023October 2, 2023 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

EEOC’s September Spree Of Filings Caps Off Landmark Year In FY 2023

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

Duane Morris Takeaways: In FY 2023, the EEOC’s litigation enforcement activity showed that any previous slowdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic is well in the rearview mirror, as the total number of lawsuits filed by the EEOC increased from 97 in 2020 to a whopping total of 144 in FY 2023. Per tradition, September 2023 was a busy month for EEOC-Initiated litigation, as this month marks the end of the EEOC’s fiscal year. This year, 67 lawsuits were filed September, up from the 39 filed in September of FY 2022.

Overall, the FY 2023 lawsuit filing data confirms that EEOC litigation is back in full throttle, with no signs of slowing down. Employers should take heed. Amplifying that activism, the Commission issued a press release at the end of the fiscal year touting its increased enforcement litigation activity, a somewhat unprecedented media statement that the EEOC has never issued in previous years.

Lawsuit Filings Based On 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 actively filing new cases over the year and throughout September. 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 offices.

In FY 2023, Philadelphia District Office had by far the most lawsuit filings with 19, followed by Indianapolis and Chicago with 13 filings, and New York and Los Angeles each with 10 filings. Charlotte, Atlanta, Dallas, Phoenix, and Memphis had 9 each, Houston had 8, Miami, Birmingham, and St. Louis had 7 each, and San Francisco had 5 filings.

The most noticeable trend of FY 2023 is the filing deluge in Philadelphia (19 lawsuits), compared to FY 2022 where Philadelphia District Office filed 7 lawsuits. Similarly, Indianapolis ramped up its filings compared to the 7 filings from FY 2022. Like FY 2022, Chicago remained steady near the top of the list again with 13 filings. Los Angeles, had a slight increase, based on the 8 filings it had in FY 2022. Going another direction, Miami filings slightly fell compared to its 8 filings in FY 2022. Finally, both New York and Charlotte increased their filings from FY 2022, with New York substantially increasing from 7, and Charlotte moderately increasing from 7 filings.

The balance across various District Offices throughout the country confirms that the EEOC’s aggressiveness is in peak form, both at the national and regional level.

Lawsuit Filings Based On Type Of Discrimination

We also analyzed the types of lawsuits the EEOC filed, in terms of the statutes and theories of discrimination alleged, in order to determine how the EEOC is shifting its strategic priorities.

When considered on a percentage basis, the distribution of cases filed by statute remained roughly consistent compared to FY 2023 and FY 2022. Title VII cases once again made up the majority of cases filed, making up 68% of all filings (down from the 69% filings in FY 2022, and significantly above 61% in FY 2021). ADA cases also made up a significant percentage of the EEOC’s September filings, totaling 34%, in line with 29.7% in FY 2022, although down from the 37% in FY 2021. There were also 12 ADEA cases filed in FY 2023, after 7 age discrimination cases filed in FY 2022.

The graphs below show 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.

Lawsuits Filings Based On Industry

The graphs below show the number of lawsuits filed by industry. Three industries were the primary targets of lawsuit filings in FY 2023: Restaurants with 28 filings, Retail with 24 filings, and Healthcare with 24 filings. Not far off those industries are Manufacturing with 15 filings; Construction with 7 filings; Automotive, Security, and Transportation with 6 filings each; and Technology with 5 filings.

Hospitality and Healthcare employers should be keenly aware of the EEOC’s enforcement of alleged discriminatory practices in these sectors. But in reality, employers in nearly any industry are vulnerable to EEOC-initiated litigation., as detailed by the below graph.

Looking Ahead To Fiscal Year 2024

Moving into FY 2024, the EEOC’s budget includes a $26.069 million increase from 2023, and focuses on six key areas including advancing racial justice and combatting systemic discrimination on all protected bases; protecting pay equity; supporting diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA); addressing the use of artificial intelligence in employment decisions and preventing unlawful retaliation.

The EEOC also announced goals for its own Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accesibility (DEIA) program where it seeks to achieve four goals, including workplace diversity, employee equity, inclusive practices, and accessibility. Additionally, the EEOC continues to polish its FY 2021 software initiatives addressing artificial intelligence, machine learning, and other emerging technologies in continued efforts to provide guidance. Finally, the joint anti-retaliation initiative among the EEOC, the U.S. Department of Labor, and the National Labor Relations Board will continue to address retaliation in American workplaces.

Key Employer Takeaways

In sum, FY 2023 was a year of new leadership and structural changes at the EEOC. With a significantly increased proposed budget, it is more crucial than ever for employers pay close attentions in regards to the EEOC’s strategic priorities and enforcement agendas. We anticipate these figures will grow by next year’s report, so it is more crucial than ever for employers to comply with discrimination laws.

September 22, 2023 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Conditional Certification Denied To Illinois Jail Guards Who Were Not Paid For Time Outside Work Engaging In COVID-19 Protocols

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

Duane Morris Takeaways: In Evans III, et al v. Dart, et al., No. 1:20-CV-02453 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2023), Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District Of Illinois denied Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of a collective action of Cook County Jail Guards who were not compensated for time spent off-the-clock decontaminating their work gear to prevent the spread of COVID-19. In rejecting the jail correctional officers’ bid for conditional certification under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), the Court ruled the Plaintiffs could not establish that they were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law, as there was no evidence that the jail even had an off-the-clock decontamination policy. Thus, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs failed to establish that their cleaning efforts outside of work resulted from any requirement imposed by their employer. The ruling is a blueprint for corporate counsel in terms of a solid approach for opposing employment-related conditional certification motions.

Case Background

The factual origins of the case stem from a COVID-19 outbreak at the Cook County Department of Corrections (“Cook County Jail”) in April 2020. Plaintiffs allege that, amid the outbreak, the Cook County Jail required correctional officers to “engag[e] in decontamination/sanitation activities” before and/or after their shifts within the CCDOC, “including washing and sanitizing their uniforms, sanitizing their persons, sanitizing and maintaining personal protective equipment (‘PPE’), and showering.” Id. at 2.

According to Plaintiffs, they would spend approximately 20 to 30 minutes before and after shifts completing these protocols but were not paid for that time. As the Court noted, “each Plaintiff described slightly different activities that took slightly different amounts of time,” which formed “a consistent narrative of enhanced decontamination activities, significantly exceeding what they did prior to COVID.” Id. at 4.

In the same month that the April 2020 outbreak began, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and a proposed group of all persons who worked at the Cook County Jail between January 27, 2020 and June 11, 2021 who engaged in the purported COVID-19 decontamination protocols, but who were not paid for time spent on those activities. Id. at 3.

The Court’s Decision

The Court declined to certify the proposed collective action based on finding that Plaintiffs fell short in identifying a common policy requiring workers in the proposed collective action to engage in those [decontamination] activities as a condition of their employment.” Id. at 1. Importantly, the Court noted that the Plaintiffs themselves acknowledged that there was no express written policy requiring correctional officers to decontaminate outside of work, and that the only instructions that they received from supervisors about decontamination was during roll call meetings, when supervisors would merely “read and disseminate general advice from the CDC” and instruct guards to not bring items home from the jail. Id. at 4-5.

Another key finding by the Court was that Plaintiffs “did not report their off-duty decontamination activities to their supervisors, nor were they asked about those efforts or disciplined for failing to decontaminate proper.” Id. at 5. Further, the Court made important note of how “no named Plaintiff reported monitoring the time consumed by their daily decontamination activities, submitting any decontamination overtime, or asking their supervisors about decontamination overtime, although many testified that there was no clear way to submit an overtime claim for these activities in the CCDOC “Workforce” record system.” Id.

In reaching its determination, the Court also rejected the relevance of a Communicable Diseases Policy that Cook County had in place requiring workers to “use good judgment and follow training and procedures related to mitigating the risks associated with communicable disease,” and if exposed to one, to “begin decontamination procedures immediately, obtain medical attention if needed, and “notify a supervisor as soon as practical.” Id. at 7. According to the Court, because this policy specified that its aim was to “provide a safe work environment,” the Court found it “hard to imagine how a pre-shift shower or laundering one’s uniform after a drive home is consistent with that language” and concluded, in turn, that the policy did not require the Plaintiffs to engage in COVID-19 protocols at issue outside of work at the jail. Id. at 11.

Finally, the Court discussed how, even if the Communicable Diseases Policy applied to activities outside of work, an “insurmountable” problem for Plaintiffs was that “none of them seemed to know about the policy at the time they were undertaking those activities.” Id. at 12. As a result, the Court found that there was no evidence showing that the Defendants had actual or constructive knowledge of any de facto policy requiring the Plaintiffs to engage in decontamination activities away from the jail. Id. at 15.

For these reasons, the Court concluded that the Plaintiffs fell short of satisfying the requirements for conditional certification of their proposed collective action.

Implications For Employers

The Evans ruling underscores the importance of maintaining and utilizing well-organized clearly-delineated employee conduct policies for activities at and away from the workplace, in anticipation of arguing the absence of uniform policies and procedures in collective actions under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). In dismissing all of Plaintiffs’ arguments after finding an absence of policy or plan for all proposed collective action members that violated the law, the Court signaled its steady reliance on the well-established standards for these types of claims, providing a valuable reaffirmation to employers’ reliable defense strategies.