General – Class Action Defense

August 10, 2026August 10, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

You’ve Got Email: The Ninth Circuit Affirms Denial Of Motion To Compel Arbitration Where Four Email Messages Containing Arbitration Agreement Sent To Employee Went Unopened

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

Duane Morris Takeaways: On August 5, 2026, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a decision denying a motion to compel arbitration brought by an employee on a representative basis under California law against his employer. In Rickes v. Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., et al., No. 25-5138 (9th Cir. Aug. 5, 2026), the Ninth Circuit decided that a district court had properly determined that there was insufficient evidence that the plaintiff assented to the arbitration agreement that had been sent to his work email address by his employer four times. The panel decided the evidence showed the plaintiff never opened the emails, supporting his declaration that he was not aware of those emails and never saw them until after he filed suit. The Ninth Circuit then held that the district court correctly decided that the plaintiff’s continued employment after he received the emails could not be construed as consent to arbitrate workplace claims because silence does not constitute assent.

Employers with a workforce in California who are considering rolling out or updating arbitration programs should take note and consider designing and implementing appropriate non-coercive, non-electronic methods of following up with employees who do not open or respond to such emails.

Case Background

Plaintiff Scott Rickes brought a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against his employer, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc. (“Thermo Fisher”), alleging he and others similarly situated whom he seeks to represent were unlawfully subjected to age discrimination under California law. Thermo Fisher moved to compel arbitration, relying on emails the company sent to the plaintiff’s work email address that contained a link to an agreement to arbitrate claims such as this. Thermo Fisher relied on evidence it submitted to the district court to demonstrate that it sent that email to the plaintiff four times in 2019. The plaintiff, however, declared that he never saw those emails because he was very busy at work and it was not uncommon for him to have unopened emails. Id. He argued that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that he assented to the arbitration agreement and therefore it could not be enforced.

The district court denied Thermo Fisher’s motion to compel arbitration, finding no evidence that an agreement to arbitrate had been reached by the parties under California contract formation principles. Thermo Fisher appealed the district court’s ruling.

The Ninth Circuit’s Decision

On August 5, 2026, a panel of the Ninth Circuit, in an unpublished decision, unanimously affirmed the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit agreed no evidence had been submitted to demonstrate that the plaintiff had ever opened any of the emails containing a link to the arbitration agreement. Asa result, there was no evidence that the plaintiff saw the arbitration agreement.

In explaining its rationale, the Ninth Circuit first noted that a contract can only be formed with mutual assent. Under California law, this requires both notice of an agreement and mutual assent to it. Mutual assent is absent when a party has not received notice of the proposed contract.

The Ninth Circuit also concluded that while “outward manifestations” of assent can be objectively inferred by a party’s conduct at times, such is not the case where this plaintiff’s conduct was mere silence in response to the offer to form an agreement to arbitrate claims related to his employment. Id. at 3.

As a result, the Ninth Circuit considered – and rejected – Fisher Scientific’s argument that where a current employee continues to work at his position after having been informed that an arbitration agreement will govern any employment claims going forward, such employee is legally considered to have assented to arbitration by inference. Due to his silence, the Ninth Circuit decided the plaintiff could not have been deemed to have accepted the agreement by failing to opt out within forty-five days.

Finally, the Ninth Circuit dispensed with Fisher Scientific’s argument that continued employment despite unsigned arbitration agreements can constitute assent to arbitration because the cases cited were inapposite. Some applied to situations where a plaintiff was subject to an employment agreement that he agreed to that contained an arbitration clause (which is not the case in this matter) and others applied to cases where an employee signed a receipt saying they received an agreement or an employee handbook containing an arbitration provision (again not at issue in this matter).

Implications For Employers

Employers with a workforce in California should heed this ruling if they are planning on rolling out new or revised arbitration agreements to cover potential employment law claims. Relying solely upon electronic means to implement such a workplace arbitration program is likely insufficient to bind employees. Employers should consider planning for non-electronic follow-up contact methods to reach employees who do not respond to emailed requests to consent to arbitration agreements; implementing tracking methods to identify such employees; and carefully crafting such follow-up communications to neutrally and in a non-coercive manner inform the employees of the need to open the email and respond to it in a timely manner. Doing so could mean the difference between facing expensive and protracted litigation in California state or federal court involving potential additional aggrieved individuals and perhaps defending a single plaintiff arbitration matter at much lower costs.

August 6, 2026August 6, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Eighth Circuit Affirms Jury Verdict For Employer In Racial Harassment Case, Finding Insufficient Evidence Of Failure To Prevent Discrimination

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Tiffany Alberty, and Brett Bohan

Duane Morris Takeaways: On August 4, 2026, in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Sun Chemical Corporation, No. 25-1318 (8th Cir. Aug. 4, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of an employer following a jury verdict rejecting a hostile work environment claim brought by the EEOC and an intervenor employee. The Eighth Circuit held that even assuming the jury instructions failed to adequately cover the EEOC’s theory that the employer could have prevented the harassment, the evidence in the record did not support such a theory. The opinion illustrates the importance of employers taking prompt corrective action in response to workplace harassment and reinforces the principle that an employer cannot be held liable for failing to prevent harassment when it lacked actual or constructive knowledge of ongoing discriminatory conduct.

Case Background

Bryan Banks and Ricardo Nevarez were both technicians at Sun Chemical Corporation, a manufacturer of inks, colorants, and coatings. Id. at 1. Their relationship deteriorated over time, culminating in a confrontation in which Nevarez punched a locker while standing near Banks and screamed that Banks was a “f***ing [N-word]” three times. Id. Banks reported the incident to a manager. Id. Sun Chemical suspended Nevarez for five days without pay and warned him that future incidents would lead to further discipline, up to and including termination. Id. at 1-2. Banks received a written warning for his profanity during the exchange. Id. at 2.

Banks subsequently filed a charge of race discrimination with the EEOC. Id. After conciliation efforts failed, the EEOC sued Sun Chemical in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Id. Banks intervened. Id. Together, the EEOC and Banks argued that Sun Chemical’s response to Nevarez using the N-word was insufficient.

The Plaintiffs’ hostile work environment claim proceeded to a jury trial. Id. at 3. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Sun Chemical, concluding that the company did not discriminate against Banks. Id.

The Eighth Circuit’s Opinion

On appeal, the EEOC argued the jury received flawed jury instructions that did not cover its theory that Sun Chemical could have prevented the harassment. Id. The instructions indicated that plaintiff needed to prove that the company “knew or should have known of the harassing conduct” and “failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action to end the harassment.” Id. The EEOC contended that the instructions addressed only whether Sun Chemical adequately responded to the harassment rather than whether the company had failed to prevent the harassment. Id. at 3-4.

The Eighth Circuit declined to decide whether the instructions adequately reflected the EEOC’s failure-to-prevent-harassment theory, holding instead that the evidence in the record did not support such a theory. Id. at 4. It explained that, even under the EEOC’s theory, Sun Chemical had to (1) have actual or constructive knowledge of “ongoing” harassment by Nevarez, and (2) decline to take “remedial action reasonably calculated to stop it.” Id.

As to the first element, the Eighth Circuit found that, at most, Sun Chemical may have known that Nevarez had used the N-word on one previous occasion toward a different Black employee. Id. Nothing about that incident would have placed the company on notice that Nevarez was a “known serial harasser.” Id. The Eighth Circuit distinguished cases where employers knew of continued harassment from a single isolated incident, noting that “a single harassing act might not be actionable standing alone.” Id. citing Engel v. Rapid City Sch. Dist., 506 F.3d 1118, 1124 (8th Cir. 2007).

Regarding the second element, shortly after the first incident, Sun Chemical sent a written disciplinary action to Nevarez directing him to “take a step back and begin to think about what you are about to say and the consequences that may follow.” Id. Although the Eighth Circuit acknowledged the response “could have been stronger,” it concluded that the discipline “reflected Nevarez’s more than three decades of service without a history of harassment,” and the law does not require an employer “to fire a harasser in the first instance to demonstrate an adequate remedial response.” Id. at 4-5.

The Eighth Circuit also rejected the EEOC’s unsupported argument that Nevarez used the N-word in occasional workplace conversations, finding that no one reported that conduct to Sun Chemical and there was not “enough information to raise a probability of harassment in the mind of a reasonable employer.” Id. at 5. It concluded that the occasional uses of the slur were not “so severe and pervasive that management reasonably should have known of them.” Id.

Implications For Employers

The Eighth Circuit’s decision in Sun Chemical provides several important takeaways for employers. First, the decision reinforces that an employer’s duty to prevent workplace harassment is triggered only when it has actual or constructive knowledge of discriminatory conduct. A single isolated incident, without more, does not place an employer on notice that an employee is a serial harasser requiring heightened preventive measures.

The opinion also confirms that courts will consider the totality of the circumstances, including the employee’s length of service and disciplinary history, when evaluating whether an employer responded appropriately. Employers should, however, document all known incidents and any progressive discipline, making clear that further incidents will result in escalating consequences, and in turn, underscoring the importance of reporting mechanisms. The Eighth Circuit found that the EEOC could not establish constructive knowledge of unreported incidents of alleged harassment. Employers who maintain clear reporting channels and anti-harassment policies may be better positioned to defend against claims that they should have known about discriminatory conduct that was never brought to management’s attention.

July 29, 2026July 29, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

“Calling” Out Fraud: Florida Federal Court Allows Counterclaim To Proceed Against TCPA Plaintiff

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

Duane Morris Takeaways: On July 21, 2026, in Smith v. GetMeHealthCare, LLC, No. 25-CV-00568, 2026 WL 2089044 (M.D. Fla. July 21, 2026), Judge Sheri Polster Chappell, writing for the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) plaintiff’s motion to dismiss a common law fraud claim brought by the defendant. Although TCPA claims can prove difficult to win on a motion to dismiss, this decision provides TCPA defendants with another powerful tool at the pleadings stage and helps create opportunities for companies to educate courts on a plaintiff’s fraudulent activity early in the proceedings.

Case Background

In 2025, Plaintiff Keneisha Smith (“Plaintiff” or “Smith”) filed a TCPA lawsuit against GetMeHealthCare, LLC (“GMHC”), alleging she received 31 unwanted telemarketing calls over a 10-day period. She claims these calls were made without her consent and even though she registered her telephone number on the national do-not-call registry.

Nonetheless, on June 12, 2025, Smith answered one of these alleged telemarketing calls. She provided her name, phone number, address, date of birth, and current insurance information. The agent then transferred Smith to a GMHC employee, who helped Smith complete the enrollment process, and signed her up for an insurance plan. Even though Smith willingly signed up for insurance, she sued GMHC claiming it violated Section 227(c)(5) of the TCPA, and its implementing regulations, for calling her telephone number despite its registration on the national do-not-call registry.

But GMHC decided to put these facts in front of the Court right away. Instead of simply moving to dismiss the claims, GMHC answered the complaint and filed counterclaims for fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent inducement. It argued that “Smith’s willingness to participate in the June 12, 2025, call is inconsistent with her wish not to be contacted.” Id. at *1. Smith also allegedly lied about her age, her actual willingness to obtain health insurance, and her desire to be contacted in the future. In support of its counterclaims, “GMHC sent a recording of the June 12, 2025 call and attached transcript of the call” to its pleadings. Id. at *1, n.1.

In response, Smith moved to dismiss the counterclaims.

The Court’s Decision

In a well-reasoned order, Judge Chappell denied Smith’s motion to dismiss in its entirety, finding “all of Smith’s arguments to be meritless.” Id. Although Smith asserted various arguments regarding the Court’s jurisdiction and GMHC’s requested relief, the majority of the opinion focused on the actual allegations of GMHC’s counterclaim, which were sufficiently pled to survive a motion to dismiss.

In federal court, fraud claims must be pled with a heightened degree of particularity. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Under this standard, “claims of fraud must proffer ‘the who, what, when, where, and how of the fraud alleged.’” Smith, 2026 WL 2089044, at *2 (quoting Omnipol, a.S. v. Worrell, 421 F. Supp. 3d 1321, 1343 (M.D. Fla. 2019), aff’d sub nom., 32 F.4th 1298 (11th Cir. 2022))

Here, Judge Chappell found that GMHC pled all of these details and the misrepresentations could be actionable. Judge Chappell found that Smith’s alleged conduct before the call where she “consent[ed] to be contacted,” when coupled with her misrepresentations about her “age” and desire to complete “enrollment,” could plausibly constitute fraud. Smith, 2026 WL 2089044, at *3. Judge Chappell also accepted GMHC’s plausible allegations that Smith’s “motivation [was] to commit fraud” and the communication was orchestrated to form the basis of “a lawsuit against GMHC to get money.” Id. Judge Chappell also independently concluded that the recording and transcript of the call supported “most, if not all, of GMHC’s allegations.” Id.

Thus, Judge Chappel rejected “Smith’s Rule 9(b) argument” and declined to dismiss the claim. Id.

Implications For Companies

The litigation strategy in Smith is significant for companies facing TCPA lawsuits.

As many companies know, it is common for a consenting customer to invite telemarketing calls, and then “deceptively play[] along” upon receipt of those calls, only to turn around and sue the caller in a TCPA class action. Abramson v. Oasis Power LLC, No. 18-CV-00479, 2018 WL 4101857, at *5 (W.D. Pa. July 31, 2018). When companies try to explain these tactics to courts at the pleadings stage, the concerns are often brushed away as “unpersuasive.” Id. The reason that strategy is ineffective is because “[p]rior express consent is an affirmative defense to a claim under the TCPA” and typically must be resolved after discovery. Murphy v. DCI Biologicals Orlando, LLC, No. 12-CV-1459, 2013 WL 6865772., at *4 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 31, 2013) (quotations omitted).

With the benefit of discovery, companies can often demonstrate the “Plaintiff invited the initial call . . . [and] further calls by playing along on the first call” as a basis why a class should not be certified because it is a unique defense that “will distract from the claim to the Class’s detriment.” Sapan v. Fed. Sav. Bank, No. 23-CV-00075, 2025 WL 3050064, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2025) (denying class certification based on typicality); see also Sapan v. Veritas Funding, LLC, No. 23-CV-00468, 2023 WL 6370223, at (C.D. Cal. July 28, 2023) (same). But it requires a significant investment to litigate a claim through class certification, and many companies are looking for an exit opportunity prior to that stage in the proceedings.

Smith provides companies with a tool to get these facts in front of courts at the earliest stages of the litigation and shape the judge’s impression of the case. It also provides companies with additional recourse as common law fraud opens up the door to tort damages that are traditionally off the table in TCPA cases. For example, in Illinois, there is an argument that “actions at common law fraud provide for the award of attorney fees and costs, as well as punitive damages.” Father & Sons, Inc. v. Taylor, 703 N.E.2d 532, 547 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998).

Further, even if the counterclaim cannot result in the entire action being dismissed at the outset of a case, it can create leverage for the company to negotiate a favorable exit from the litigation early on. And, if the case proceeds to discovery regardless, the counterclaim can prove useful given that “a defense or counterclaim defeats typicality if it is likely to become the litigation’s focus.” Hirsch v. USHealth Advisors, LLC, 337 F.R.D. 118, 133 (N.D. Tex. 2020).

Thus, corporate counsel facing TCPA actions should be carefully considering the facts in their cases to determine whether they support the use of a similar counterclaim or other creative procedural defenses.

June 17, 2026June 17, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

The Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog’s 700th Post!

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Duane Morris Takeaways: Since its inception in September of 2022, the Duane Morris Class Action Defense blog has posted 700 times! There have been over 100,000 views to blog posts, with thousands of people reading about class action litigation developments. There are so many highlights from the last 700 posts, but we wanted to provide just a few for you here. Click on the links below to see all the hot trends in class action litigation.

We launched the third edition of the Duane Morris Class Action Review, which is a one-of-its-kind publication analyzing class action trends, decisions, and settlements in all areas impacting Corporate America. The Review has been prominently featured in the media and is a must-have for all human resources professionals and corporate counsel.

We also published mini-books focused on specialized areas of law (including ERISA, Products Liability & Mass Torts, FCRA, Discrimination, Consumer Fraud, Antitrust, TCPA, Data Breach and Privacy, Wage & Hour and PAGA, and EEOC and Government-Enforcement), various unique industries (including Higher Education, Insurance, Energy, Oil, & Gas, Transportation, Automotive, & Logistics, Healthcare, Hospitality, and Digital Assets & Blockchain), and state-specific laws in class action litigation and on EEOC-Initiated litigation.

Every week on the blog, we feature attorneys and experts discussing the latest class action developments and rulings on the Class Action Weekly Wire Podcast. Tune in each week for a new episode! Some of the most popular podcasts were featuring the dismissal of a class action in a data breach area, a discussion on the California’s Supreme Court’s win for employers, and the overview of class action litigation in the digital assets and blockchain sector.

Click here to read our most viewed blog post of 2026, entitled “AI Hallucinated Case Citations Prompt Sanctions And Delay Class Action Settlement.” Over 2,000 people read this post! Other top reads included our analysis of a 2024 ruling in Illinois dismissing class action privacy claims, an overview of the American Tort Reform Association’s picks for the top Judicial Hellholes in 2025, and our always sought-after annual blog post covering the developments in EEOC FY Filings.

Thank you, loyal followers, for making the Class Action Defense blog your stop for class action litigation related information, trends, and analysis. We truly appreciate it! Please keep coming back, we promise to keep the content fresh and informative!

June 2, 2026June 2, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Oregon Federal Court Denies Class Certification Due To The Impact Of Unique Defenses On The Named Plaintiffs

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Katherine L. Alphonso, and Jamar D. Davis

Duane Morris Takeaways: On May 28, 2026, in Ashley Schroeder et al. v. University of Oregon, Case No. 6:23-CV-01806, 2026 WL 1494043 (D. Or. May 28, 2026), Judge Michael J. McShane of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon – without deciding whether the University of Oregon adequately supports or invests in women athletics – reaffirmed that the typicality requirement for class certification cannot be met when “there is a danger that absent class members will suffer if their representative is preoccupied” with its own unique defenses. The ruling is a significant one for corporate counsel and provides a blueprint for defense of class action claims.

Case Background

In the 2000s, particularly at the collegiate level and among Division 1 institutions in warm-weather conferences, beach volleyball was a rapidly growing sport. Id. at *2. In 2009, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”), under its Emerging Sports for Women program, designated women’s beach volleyball an “emerging sport” for women. Id. Notably, the NCAA Emerging Sports for Women program was designed to encourage schools to create more opportunities for women’s athletic participation to meet the requirements of Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972 (“Title IX”). Id.

As a state educational institution, the University of Oregon (the “University”) receives federal funds and is therefore subject to Title IX requirements. Id. at *1. In 2013, the University’s athletic department announced the addition of women’s volleyball to its roster of varsity teams. Id. at *2. Since its announcement, the University has worked to approve new beach volleyball facilities, provide locker rooms, make scholarships available for recruitment, and hire a new coach. Id. It currently sponsors eight men’s varsity teams (baseball, basketball, cross country, football, golf, tennis, indoor track and field, and outdoor track and field) and twelve women’s varsity teams (acrobatics and tumbling, basketball, beach volleyball, cross country, golf, lacrosse, soccer, softball, tennis, indoor track and field, outdoor track and field, and (indoor) volleyball). Id. at *1. The University also hosts forty-one club sports teams, including but not limited to rowing, which operate outside of the school’s athletic department and are generally student organized. Id. at *1-2.

Plaintiffs — consisting of female student athletes attending the University, five of which are current or former members of the women’s beach volley team (“Beach Volleyball Plaintiffs”) and four of which are current or former members of the women’s club rowing team (“Rowing Plaintiffs”) — filed a complaint alleging the University continues to violate Title IX by depriving its female student-athletes of equal treatment, equal access to athletic financial aid permissible under federal law, and equal opportunities to participate in varsity athletics. Id. at *1.

In pursuit of their claims, Plaintiffs asked the Court to certify the following classes: (1) Equal Treatment and Benefits Class defined as “all current and future female students who participate or will participate in intercollegiate varsity athletics at [the University]”; (2) Damages Class for the Equal Treatment and Benefits claim; (3) Equal Financial Aid Class defined as “all current and future female students who participate or will participate in intercollegiate varsity athletics at [the University] and do not receive all athletic financial aid permissible under federal law”; (4) Damages Class for the Equal Financial Aid claim; and (5) Effective Accommodation Class defined as “all present and future female students at [the University] who are being deprived of the opportunity to participate on women’s varsity intercollegiate athletic teams.” Id. at *3-4.

The District Court’s Decision

Judge McShane denied class certification for four of the five requested classes, namely the Equal Treatment and Benefits Class, both Damages Classes, and the Effective Accommodation Class. Id. at *5-8. The Court stayed its class certification consideration as to the Equal Financial Aid Class pending final disposition of the underlying claim on its merits. Id. at *4-5.

With regards to the Equal Treatment and Benefits Class, the Court held Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)’s typicality requirement ultimately prevented certification of the class. Id. at *6. While factual variations between a named plaintiff and proposed class members do not per se defeat typicality, typicality cannot be met when “there is a danger that absent class members will suffer if their representative is preoccupied with defenses unique to it.” Id. at *6 (internal citation omitted).

Here, rather than discussing all purported class members, Plaintiffs focused almost exclusively on the unique experiences of the Beach Volleyball Plaintiffs. Id. For example, unlike most of the other women’s varsity teams, the beach volleyball team practiced and competed off campus; until September 2025, the beach volleyball team was the only varsity team without its own locker room; and the beach volleyball team was the only varsity team without a dedicated full-time head coach who was not also coaching another team. Id. Moreover, the Beach Volleyball Plaintiffs “would need to address whether their participation in an ‘emerging’ varsity sport influences the merits of their Title IX claim.” Id. The Court expressed concern that addressing the unique experiences of the Beach Volleyball Plaintiffs would steal the focus of the litigation, creating an impermissible danger to absent class members. Id.

With regards to the two Damages Classes, the Court held a class action is not a superior method to litigate Plaintiffs’ damages claims because there are “too many distinct individual determinations that frustrate [class action] manageability. Id. at *7; see Fed. Rule of Civ. Prod. 23(b)(3). Again, the atypical experiences of the Beach Volleyball Plaintiffs would require individualized inquiry into any alleged liabilities and/or applicable remedies. Id. In addition, individualized inquiries would be needed “to determine which student-athletes were eligible for various forms of financial aid and the amount of aid they hypothetically would have received.” Id. This is only further complicated by “the University’s policy of allocating financial aid on a team-by-team basis and allowing coaches to make discretionary awards to student-athletes,” resulting in a requisite analysis into which student-athletes may have been eligible for aid but were not necessarily awarded scholarships because of other individualized considerations. Id.

With regards to the Effective Accommodation Class, the Court held the Rowing Plaintiffs were not members of the proposed class because they failed to demonstrate “they have the abilities to participate in varsity athletics . . . ” as their rowing times were markedly lower than the worst performing Division 1 rowing teams. Id. at *8 (emphasis in original). As such, Rowing Plaintiffs cannot be deprived of the opportunity to participate in varsity athletics. Id. Moreover, the Rowing Plaintiffs’ “inability to compete on a varsity level subjects them to a unique defense that defeats typicality.” Id. As mentioned above, rowing was a club sport operating outside of the school’s athletic department.

An interesting focus in the Court’s ruling was its dicta regarding the “proverbial elephant in the Title IX room” — men’s college football. Id. at *2. The Court reasoned that college football has evolved into a highly commercialized enterprise requiring investments—“extensive game-day operations and security; expansive locker room and training facilities; specialized coaching staffs numbering in the dozens; strength and conditioning programs; sports medicine and physical therapy personnel; recruiting operations; charter travel; housing and meal programs; academic tutoring; scholarships; and year-round training infrastructure” — comparative to the scale of its revenue. Id. at *2-3. Specifically, Title IX compliance cannot be measured solely on a dollar-for-dollar basis and must be “viewed across the athletic program as a whole.” Id. at *3.

Implications For Universities And Other Title IX Institutions

The Court’s message to the defense bar here is clear: continue to distinguish the named plaintiffs from the proposed class members (through factual distinctions, discrete issues, shortcomings on judicial efficiency, and unique defenses) as much as possible to oppose class certification. The opinion also provides helpful insight into how the statutory and regulatory framework of Title IX permits disparate expenditures among varying collegiate sports (namely men’s football when compared to other sports), serving as a defense into the extraordinary institutional investments associated with men’s college football that does not run counter to the aims of Title IX.

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

Fourth Circuit Closes Door On Third Party ERISA And WARN Act Class-Wide Liability

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Rebecca S. Bjork, and Olga A. Romadin

Duane Morris Takeaways: On May 26, 2026, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion affirming a federal district court’s dismissal of a putative class action alleging violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (“WARN”) Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) in Tony Messer v. Garrison Investment Group, LP, No. 25-1657, 2026 WL 1465139 (4th Cir. May 26, 2026). Citing a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court decision, the Fourth Circuit ruled that the plaintiffs could not pursue a private equity firm they had voluntarily dismissed from their earlier suit for a judgment against their former employer because the district court had no jurisdiction over the firm.

Case Background

On October 19, 2018, plaintiffs, a group of several hundred former employees, brought a class action against Bristol Compressors International, LLC (“BCI”) and Garrison Investment Group LP, as BCI’s alter ego and successor, alleging that the manufacturer had failed to provide sufficient notice of the plant’s closure in violation of the WARN Act, and that it had failed to comply with ERISA in terminating the employee severance plan. Id. at *1. Following certification of three sub-classes and completion of discovery, Garrison moved for summary judgment, arguing that it could not be held vicariously liable for the actions of BCI. Id. Both Garrison and BCI also argued that the employee severance plan had been properly terminated, that members of a subclass had released their claims by signing an agreement, and that other workers had received proper notice of the plant closure under the WARN Act. Id. Plaintiffs moved to voluntarily dismiss Garrison without prejudice, citing conservation of resources, which Garrison opposed, predicting that if plaintiffs were unable to collect a judgment against BCI they would seek to collect it from Garrison instead. Id. at *2. The district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss without prejudice. Id. Additionally, the district court granted partial summary judgment to BCI on the severance plan, and found that those workers who had signed an agreement releasing all of their claims against BCI could not participate in the suit. Id. At the subsequent trial on the remaining WARN Act claims, the district court found BCI liable, and awarded a judgment totaling $1,392,915.40, which, following an appeal to the Fourth Circuit and reversal of summary judgment on the severance plan, was increased to $4,078,105.11 on remand. Id.

In August 2024, unable to collect the judgement against BCI following its insolvency and dissolution, the plaintiffs brought an action against Garrison, its agents, owners, and related entities, alleging that it was BCI’s alter ego and seeking to pierce the corporate veil. Id. at *3. Plaintiffs argued that federal jurisdiction was proper because Garrison controlled BCI when it had violated federal laws, but the district court granted Garrison’s motion to dismiss, citing lack of subject matter jurisdiction as the judgement had been awarded against BCI following voluntary dismissal of Garrison from the earlier case, and, alternatively, finding that the statute of limitations. Id. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Fourth Circuit’s Decision

The Fourth Circuit determined that there was no federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and agreed with the district court’s interpretation of Peacock v. Thomas, 516 U.S. 349 (1996), where the U.S. Supreme Court found that federal courts do not have ancillary jurisdiction to impose liability over a party that was “not otherwise liable.” Id. at *3.

In, Peacock, an ERISA class action, the Supreme Court declined to extend subject matter jurisdiction over an officer and shareholder of the plaintiff’s former employer following a judgment of liability against the employer and determination that the officer and shareholder was a non-fiduciary third party and not liable for the judgement. Id. at *4. Noting that the Messer plaintiffs brought the action against Garrison “solely” because BCI could not pay, that no new violations were being alleged, and that neither ERISA nor the WARN Act impose liability on third parties, the Fourth Circuit found “no independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction.” Id. at *5. Further, the Fourth Circuit wrote that U.S. Department of Labor regulations explicitly “foreclose the applicability of duplicative theories of recovery such as piercing the corporate veil,” and the practice is disfavored both within the Fourth Circuit and other circuits. Id. at *5-6.

The Fourth Circuit was unconvinced by plaintiffs’ argument that their claims against Garrison were independent of its suit against BCI, which it dismissed on a brief overview of the record and conclusion that this was a mere attempt to piece the corporate veil in order to extend liability to Garrison. Id. at *6.

Finally, the Fourth Circuit, emphasizing the limited jurisdiction of federal courts, declined to exercise ancillary jurisdiction over the claims against Garrison on the grounds that the plaintiffs had voluntarily dismissed its claims against Garrison in their earlier suit, and proceeded to litigate exclusively against BCI, which in effect made BCI the only entity liable for the judgement. Id. at *7.

Implications For Employers

The Fourth Circuit’s decision in Messer highlights both the importance of maintaining practices that conform with applicable law, and proactive engagement with workforces who may fall under ERISA and the WARN Act when enacting reductions in force or similar measures. Key to this case, for example, was how employees were offered compensation in exchange for liability waivers. Further, this decision underscores how companies with outside ownership should consider the strategic advantage of litigating separately from affiliates, especially when risking joint and several liability.

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

Doctor’s Orders: Michigan Data Breach Class Action Dismissed Due To The CAFA’s Home-State Exception

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., George J. Schaller, and Denis Yavorskiy

Duane Morris Takeaways: On May 26, 2026, in Berven v. Sturgis Hosp., Inc., 25-CV-1142 (W.D. Mich. May 26, 2026), Judge Robert J. Jonker of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan dismissed two related data breach class actions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the Class Action Fairness Act’s (“CAFA”) home-state exception prevented the Court from exercising jurisdiction over the cases.

The Court found that the defendant, Sturgis Hospital, Inc., carried its burden of proving that the CAFA’s home-state exception applied by demonstrating that it is more likely than not that over two-thirds of the class members are Michigan citizens. Sturgis Hospital’s records suggested that roughly 90% of its employees and former patients, the two populations impacted by the alleged data breach, reside in Michigan. Companies facing data breach and other class actions should consider similar ways to challenge jurisdiction by invoking the home-state exception.

Case Background

Plaintiffs Lavonna Berven and Paul Minor filed two related class actions against Sturgis Hospital asserting multiple “state law claims — negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Michigan Consumer’s Protection Act” arising from an alleged data breach. Id. at *3. Plaintiffs alleged that they had “subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(2), the CAFA provisions of the diversity jurisdiction statute.” Id.

Sturgis Hospital is a nonprofit hospital with its principal place of business in Sturgis, Michigan, near the Indiana border, and primarily employs and serves Michigan residents. Id. at *2. Sturgis Hospital collects “a home address” from every employee and patient that uses its services. Id. at *2, n 1. According to its records, “[r]oughly 90% of Sturgis’ employees reside in Michigan” and “since 2010, at least 90% of all patient visits to Sturgis were from individuals with a Michigan home address.” Id. at *2.

In September 2025, after detecting unauthorized activity in its computer network, the hospital sent “approximately 21,379 notice letters” to former patients and employees with “known addresses that were affected by the data breach.” Id. Of those notice letters “19,412—or 90.80%—were sent to individuals with Michigan addresses.” Id. Plaintiffs alleged a breach resulting in “an unauthorized third party” acquiring “Personal Identifying Information (PII) and Private Health Information (PHI)” of approximately 77,771 employees and former patients and sought to represent a purported class of those impacted. Id. Sturgis Hospital moved to dismiss both cases under the CAFA’s home-state exception.

The Court’s Decision

Judge Jonker dismissed both complaints, determining that Sturgis Hospital demonstrated “by a preponderance of evidence that the home-state exception applies[.]” Generally, under the “CAFA, federal courts have jurisdiction over class actions where: (1) any member of the class of Plaintiffs is a citizen of a different state than any defendant; (2) the class includes more than 100 putative class members; and (3) the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000.” Id. at *3-4 (emphasis in original). However, under the CAFA’s home-state exception, federal courts must “decline jurisdiction if ‘two-thirds or more of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate,’ and the primary defendants, ‘are citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed.’” Id. at *4 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(B)).

Judge Jonker noted that Sturgis Hospital did not need to prove the “actual citizenship of the class members” and instead had to show domicile, which turns on proof of residence and an intent to remain. Id. at *4. Sturgis Hospital produced a declaration from its CFO and COO to demonstrate, along with “over ten thousand pages of hospital records” that suggested that “roughly 90% of its employees and former patients — the only two populations affected by the data breach—reside in Michigan.” Id. These records, along with testimony, showed that between 2010 to 2025, the percent of Sturgis employees and former patients that resided in Michigan ranged from 89.55% to 92.15%., and from 93.96% to 95.80%, respectively. Id. at *5-6.

Judge Jonker found that this evidence “strongly suggest[ed]” that the “two populations affected by the data breach — resided, and were therefore presumptively domiciled, in Michigan.” Id. at *6. Further, Sturgis Hospital’s notice letter process was “even more persuasive[]” support, as testimony showed that the hospital mailed “approximately 21,379 notice letters to potential class members[,]” 90.8% of which “were sent to individuals with Michigan home-addresses.” Id. Considering this evidence, it was “easy for the Court to find Sturgis has shown that it is more likely than not that over two-thirds of the proposed class members are residents, and therefore citizens, of Michigan.” Id. at *6-7.

Plaintiffs attempted to “poke holes” in the records, claiming they are “are unreliable indicators of residence and citizenship” and that “the addresses of former patients may be faulty.” Id. at *7. Plaintiffs also argued that “the patient-visit data . . . does not fairly represent the class because it includes ‘repeat patients’ that may have sought care . . . multiple times and other individuals that may have not been affected by the breach.” Id. Judge Jonker was unpersuaded by Plaintiffs’ “speculations[.]” Sturgis Hospital “required their employees to provide a home address” and “asked patients to provide a home address at every visit,” and for those patients with multiple visits, it used “the most recent address provided.” Id. at *8. Additionally, before sending notice letters, the hospital “used a third-party vendor to check for address changes for everyone that had been identified as involved in the data breach.” Id. (emphasis in original). Judge Jonker found that these procedures in verifying address residence data “ensure[d] that residence data [was] reasonably accurate.” Id.

Judge Jonker also found that potential “double counting had a negligible impact” since “the percentage of patient visits from individuals with a Michigan address” and “the percentage of notice letters that were sent to actual individuals” were both consistent at “roughly 90%.” Id. at *8-9. Further, Sturgis Hospital’s physical location nearing the Indiana border did not “rebut the presumption of domicile.” Id. at *9. Rather, the fact that Sturgis Hospital “is located ‘exclusively’ in Sturgis, Michigan, and markets itself as a ‘hometown’ medical service’” weighed in favor of applying the home-state exception. Id.

The Court concluded that “the consistency of the data suggests that Sturgis’ information easily meets the preponderance standard” and found “the home-state exception to [the] CAFA applies.” Id. at *10. Accordingly, the Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Id.

Implications For Businesses

Berven illustrates that the CAFA is not an unbounded vehicle for litigating class actions in federal court, and when an exception applies, here the home-state exception, this defeats federal court jurisdiction and requires dismissal. Sturgis Hospital presented hospital records and notice letter statistics showing that the home-state exception applied because over two-thirds of the proposed class members are citizens of Michigan.

Jurisdictional challenges are strategic decisions that should be carefully considered when defending against class actions. Corporate counsel should weigh the pros and cons of proceeding in federal versus state court before asserting a jurisdictional exception to the CAFA. Corporate counsel should also consider the strength of the support and whether it proves by a preponderance of the evidence that an exception applies.

May 29, 2026May 29, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Third Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of Session Replay Code Class Action Because The Collection Of Anonymized Information Does Not Constitute A Concrete Injury Necessary To Confer Article III Standing

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Justin Donoho, and Hayley Ryan

Duane Morris Takeaways: On May 26, 2026, in Smidga, et al. v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., No. 24-1757, 2026 WL 1470137 (3d Cir. May 26, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a federal district court’s dismissal of a class action alleging that the defendant’s use of session replay code, a form of website analytics technology, violated federal and state privacy laws. Relying on its prior decision in Cook v. GameStop, Inc., 148 F.4th 153 (3d Cir. 2025), the Third Circuit held that the three named plaintiffs lacked standing because there were no allegations of embarrassment or humiliation, plaintiffs voluntarily provided the information on the defendant’s website, the information allegedly collected was anonymized, and, in any event, most people “understand that what we do on the Internet is not completely private.” Id. at *2. Accordingly, the Third Circuit concluded that plaintiffs failed to allege a concrete injury to their privacy interests sufficient to confer Article III standing. Id. at *1.

This ruling reinforces the growing trend among federal courts requiring plaintiffs to plausibly allege that the collected data was personally identifiable and obtained without authorization in order to establish a concrete privacy injury.

Background

Many companies embed session replay code and other similar software, such as Google Analytics and the Meta Pixel, into their websites to conduct website analytics and/or targeted advertising. All of these various technologies capture users’ browsing behaviors and cryptographically transmit this data to algorithms residing on the software providers’ servers. Upon entry into the algorithm, this data is typically anonymized, aggregated, and not alleged to have been viewed or accessible by any human. Plaintiffs across the country have filed multitudes of class actions challenging these various website analytics and advertising practices under federal and state privacy laws, targeting companies in virtually every industry, including healthcare, retail, education, and consumer products. Some cases have resulted in multimillion-dollar settlements, others have been dismissed, and the vast majority remain undecided. In these session replay and other data privacy class actions, the central question is often whether the specific data captured is sufficiently sensitive or personally identifying to establish a cognizable legal injury.

In Smidga, three named plaintiffs sued the defendant airline, alleging that session replay code embedded on its website recorded users’ interactions with the website in real time, including “text entries, mouse clicks, and geolocation.” Id. at *1. Plaintiffs asserted claims under the Pennsylvania and Maryland Wiretap Acts, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law, and several other state and common law causes of action. Id. at *1 n.2.

All three plaintiffs visited defendant’s website to browse flights. Only one plaintiff ultimately purchased tickets and entered the names, addresses, and ages of herself and her children while doing so. Id. at *1.

The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or, alternatively, for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In support of its Rule 12(b)(1) arguments, the defendant submitted a declaration from its Senior Vice President and Chief Information Officer disputing plaintiffs’ allegations that the session replay code collected personal information and explaining that any data collected was “not traceable to any specific [w]ebsite user.” Id. at *1.

The District Court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of standing, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish an injury-in-fact sufficient to confer Article III standing, while also granting plaintiffs leave to seek jurisdictional discovery and amend the complaint again. Id. When plaintiffs took no further action, the District Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and plaintiffs appealed.

The Third Circuit’s Decision

The Third Circuit affirmed dismissal of the complaint but modified the District Court’s order so that the dismissal would be without prejudice. Id.

After observing that its recent decision in Cook v. GameStop, Inc., 148 F.4th 153 (3d Cir. 2025), “plainly resolve[d]” plaintiffs’ standing challenge, the Third Circuit “briefly explain[ed]” why plaintiffs failed to establish a concrete injury sufficient to confer Article III standing. Id. at *2.

First, the Third Circuit held that the alleged harm did not share a “close relationship” to the comparator torts of disclosure of private information or intrusion upon seclusion. Id. With respect to public disclosure of private information, the Third Circuit explained that the two non-purchasing plaintiffsdid not allege that the defendant collected any personal information. Although the purchasing plaintiff entered personal information while using the website, the Third Circuit noted that the tort of public disclosure of private facts requires allegations of resulting embarrassment or humiliation, which were absent from the complaint. Id.

The Third Circuit similarly concluded that plaintiffs failed to state an analogous intrusion upon seclusion injury. Such a claim requires allegations that the defendant intentionally intruded upon plaintiffs’ “private affairs or concerns.” Id. The Third Circuit determined that standard was not satisfied because plaintiffs voluntarily provided the information, the allegedly collected information was anonymized, and, in any event, most people “understand that what we do on the Internet is not completely private.” Id.

Second, the Third Circuit rejected plaintiffs’ argument that bare violations alone confer standing, concluding that the argument misconstrued Third Circuit precedent and the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 426–27 (2021). Id. at *2.

Third, the Third Circuit reasoned that it was “hard-pressed to find that a de facto invasion of privacy exists where a website makes no express promise to refrain from collecting site visitors’ information.” Id. at *3. As explained in Cook, “there is a material difference between an allegation that a website merely failed to ask for visitors’ consent to data collection and an allegation that a website expressly promised it would not collect information but secretly did so anyway.” Id. The complaint contained no allegations that the defendant made such a promise.

The Third Circuit also rejected plaintiffs’ challenge to the District Court’s consideration of the declaration submitted in support of the defendant’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss. The Third Circuit emphasized that plaintiffs failed to request discovery to respond to the defendant’s factual challenge despite being given the opportunity to do so, and it agreed that plaintiffs’ “boilerplate averments” alone could not rebut the defendant’s external evidence. Id. at *3.

Accordingly, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal order for lack of Article III standing but modified the dismissal to be without prejudice.

Implications For Companies

Smidga reinforces that plaintiffs challenging the use of common website analytics and advertising technology must, at a minimum, plausibly allege that the technology collected and disclosed personally identifying information, rather than anonymized, aggregated web-browsing data cryptographically transmitted to software providers’ servers and not viewable or accessible by any human. Moreover, alleging the collection and disclosure of PII via functionally internal session replay technology may or may not confer standing, depending on the jurisdiction one is in, as we blogged about earlier this month (here).

For companies facing session replay and other data privacy class actions in federal court, Article III standing remains a significant threshold defense that should be evaluated throughout the litigation, while balancing the possibility that claims may continue in state court.

May 27, 2026May 27, 2026 by Jennifer A. Riley

The Beard Group’s Class Action Money & Ethics Conference Covers Major Developments And Trends In Class Action Litigation

By Jennifer A. Riley, Greg Tsonis, George J. Schaller, and Ryan T. Garippo

Duane Morris Takeaways: Jennifer A. Riley, Greg Tsonis, George J. Schaller, and Ryan T. Garippo, members of the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Group, recently attended the Beard Group’s Class Action Money & Ethics Conference organized in New York City. The conference, held on May 21, 2026, hosted hundreds of attendees, covered key trends in class action litigation, and honored several attorneys for their accomplishments in the class action industry. Jennifer A. Riley of Duane Morris gave the keynote address, and George J. Schaller and Ryan T. Garippo of Duane Morris received awards for their accomplishments as two of 12 Premier Class Action Lawyers Of Tommorow in the United States.

The Conference

At the Class Action Money & Ethics Conference, the Beard Group, Inc. hosts a gathering of the top class action professionals to discuss the hottest topics in class action and multi-plaintiff litigation, including new filings, pre-trial proceedings, settlements, verdicts, and the latest trends in this area of the law. The Conference featured panelists and attendees who are attorneys on both sides of the bar, judges, as well as other professionals who focus their work on class action litigation.

The Conference features panels that speak on a wide range of topics. These topics included the use of data analytics and artificial intelligence in class action litigation, mass arbitrations, the trends in data breach and consumer protection litigation, environmental class actions, and more.

The State Of The Industry

Jen Riley, Vice Chair of Duane Morris’s Class Action Defense Team, opened the Conference by presenting the ten latest trends in class action and multi-plaintiff litigation in her keynote speech. The presentation is based on the findings from the Duane Morris Class Action Review, which is a “one-of-a-kind” publication, that summarizes class action trends and decisions across substantive areas of law.

As Jen Riley explained, in 2025, class action litigation exploded which led to record-breaking settlement figures by a wide margin. In 2025, the ten largest class action settlements can be aggregated to a total of over $79 billion dollars which were paid from corporate defendants to individuals across the nation. This trend was driven by high class certification rates, high quantities of class action filings, shifts within the substantive claims that plaintiffs are pursuing and several other variables. The net effect of these trends was that the class action mechanism served as an effective tool for the plaintiffs’ bar to redistribute wealth at an unprecedented level.

Jen Riley also discussed the shifting landscape with respect to some of the most cutting-edge defenses to defeating class actions. She discussed the success of corporate defendants in defeating class actions via motions to compel arbitration, and some of the latest case law on arbitrations that is currently being litigated before the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition, she reviewed the ongoing federal appellate circuit split concerning the standards for when to grant conditional certification (if at all) under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the applicability of the personal jurisdiction defense to the claims of individual class and collective action members. Jen Riley, providing the keynote address, is pictured below:

Panels On Class Actions And Related Issues

Following Jen Riley’s keynote address, numerous panels followed on the state of class action litigation across various areas of substantive law. The panels in the morning focused on a wide range of topics. The first panel discussed the use of data analytics in class action litigation, particularly by plaintiffs’ attorneys, to identify potential defendants to sue and then effectively prosecute their clients’ claims after. There were also panelists on securities class actions, which helped explain the role that private plaintiffs’ firms have to play during the Trump administration’s control of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The morning ended with a discussion of the future of litigation financing and the impact of various state laws on the continued viability of the practice.

The panels in the afternoon focused largely on consumer class actions and again covered many areas of substantive law. The afternoon opened with a lively panel on the current state of mass arbitrations, including a conversation regarding the plaintiffs’ bar’s use of arbitration agreements in their engagement letters, and how it impacts their ability to challenge the viability of arbitration agreements in federal and state courts across the country. There were panels on how the plaintiffs’ bar evaluates claims in data breach cases, as well as the shifting trends in data privacy class actions as a result. These panels were followed by additional discussions on the impact of multi-district litigation, environmental class actions, and a comparative analysis of global class actions which explained the various ways that plaintiffs are seeking to monetize mass torts and other alleged harms outside of Rule 23’s class action mechanism. The afternoon concluded with a panel on the scope of consumer protection class actions, including the cutting-edge theories that plaintiffs are pursuing to advance the law in this space, as well as the challenges in identifying plaintiffs to pursue such claims in light of the Eleventh Circuit’s decision that service payments are per se impermissible in class action settlements.

Premier Class Action Lawyers Of Tommorow Award Ceremony

After the panels concluded, there was a reception which was emceed by the Honorable Kathy King, who is a Justice on the Supreme Court in New York County state court. Justice King gave her concluding remarks on the event and also awarded this year’s Premier Class Action Lawyers Of Tommorow with awards for accomplishments in the class action industry. The award was provided to twelve attorneys, under the age of 40, who are redefining the frontiers of class action litigation through innovative strategies, landmark victories, and unwavering commitment to justice on both sides of the bar.

This year’s award winners included Ryan Garippo and George Schaller, both of Duane Morris, who were honored to accept their awards from Judge King and the Beard Group. George and Ryan are pictured below:

May 4, 2026May 4, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

The Disorganization Defense: North Carolina Federal Judge Finds That Litigation Practices Of Plaintiffs’ Counsel Are Sufficient Grounds To Deny Class And Collective Certification

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

Duane Morris Takeaways: On April 22, 2026, in Ayers, v. GKN Driveline North America, Inc., No. 23-CV-00581, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89819 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 22, 2026), Chief Judge Catherine Eagles of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina denied several motions to certify various claims as class and collective actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the “FLSA”) and the North Carolina Wage And Hour Act (the “NCWHA”). This decision underscores the responsibility of plaintiffs’ counsel to manage a case and present the court with a viable plan to bring their clients’ claims through trial. Otherwise, plaintiffs’ counsel runs the risk that the court will not certify these claims at all.

Case Background

This decision emerges in the context of a series of seven-year-long lawsuits against GKN Driveline North America, Inc. (“GKN”), the supplier of all-wheel-drive and other automotive components, for several major automotive manufactures. Plaintiffs James Ayers, John Carson, and Tameka Ferges (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) brought three separate wage-and-hour lawsuits, asserting claims under the FLSA and the NCWHA. Plaintiffs alleged that GKN required them to perform work off the clock, including before and after shifts, and during unpaid meal breaks.

In 2018, Plaintiffs filed an earlier case against GKN. In that case, Plaintiffs alleged GKN had two policies that resulted in underpayment of their wages: (1) a “time rounding” policy; and (2) an “automatic deduction” policy for meal breaks. The Court originally conditionally certified an FLSA collective action and a Rule 23 class action under both of those theories. But the court ultimately decertified both the FLSA collective and the Rule 23 class, finding that “individual issues would swamp any attempt to resolve the claims on the class or collective basis.” Id. at *5

After that decision, Plaintiffs – represented by the same counsel – refiled three similar lawsuits, which split the claims based on GKN’s plant locations, but otherwise left the theories mostly intact. Plaintiffs then filed renewed motions for class and collective certification in each of the three actions and again asked the Court to allow them to proceed on a representative basis. The Court’s opinion, for all three cases, followed.

The Court’s Decision

In her 28-page opinion, Chief Judge Eagles of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina denied Plaintiffs’ motions based largely on manageability grounds.

Chief Judge Eagles explained that “manageability principles are explicit in the requirements for a proposed Rule 23(b)(3) class” and that “wider case management concerns remain relevant in the collective context.” Id. at 13. Thus, it is generally a plaintiff’s attorney’s responsibility to present the court with an “organized presentation of claims, organized discovery and motions practice, and organized submission of evidence.” Id. But here, Plaintiff’s counsel failed to present a manageable class or collective in at least four different ways.

First, and perhaps most fundamentally, Chief Judge Eagles found that “plaintiffs propose no efficient method of resolving class-wide liability and individual damages across three different subclasses.” Id. at *18. Although Plaintiffs’ theory was premised on the notion that GKN had a “de facto off-the-clock” policy, Plaintiffs did not explain how they planned to “efficiently prove that each and every nonexempt employee was subject to that de facto policy and, even more crucially, how each class member was injured by this policy.” Id. at *18-19. Chief Judge Eagles found this omission troubling given that “plaintiffs have had years to think about these problems” and could not present the court with a manageable solution. Id. at *19. But Chief Judge Eagles did not stop there.

Second, having dispensed with the omissions in Plaintiffs’ theory of case manageability, Chief Judge Eagles turned to Plaintiffs’ counsel who she reasoned has “not demonstrated the organization, diligence, and mindset required to prosecute a complex case.” Id. at *21. Chief Judge Eagles explained that because she often had to prompt Plaintiffs’ counsel to prosecute the case, via supplemental briefing and discovery, she had lost confidence in their ability to manage the docket. This problem was compounded by Plaintiffs’ counsel’s filing of “several ‘emergency’ motions and amended ‘emergency motions’” which underscored their inability to “handle ordinary litigation problems.” Id. at *21-22.

Third, Chief Judge Eagles characterized Plaintiffs’ counsel’s Rule 23 analysis as the product of an unreliable “narrator of the record.” Id. at *22-23. She described Plaintiffs’ counsel’s submissions as “inaccurate at best and misrepresentations at worst.” Id. at *23. Similarly, for the FLSA claims, Chief Judge Eagles held that the “factual representations about the evidence in the plaintiffs’ briefing on an FLSA collective do not always hold up to scrutiny.” Id. at *31-32. These inaccuracies did not give her confidence that Plaintiffs’ counsel would be able to present a manageable case through trial.

Fourth, as to the FLSA claims, Chief Judge Eagles concluded by finding that “the plaintiffs have not proposed any plan, much less a workable plan, for the aggregation of all these claims.” Id. at *31. For example, Chief Judge Eagles highlighted that plaintiffs “have not explained how they will manage presenting evidence on all the different work activities at issue and [across] three different plants.” Id. She noted that – although it is often possible for plaintiffs’ counsel to create such theories — “[i]f they are unable to make the required showing after over seven years of litigation, there is no reason to think they will be able to do so by the time these cases are called for trial.” Id. at *33.

In short, Chief Judge Eagles explained that she “has certified several dozen class actions over the past fifteen years and is familiar with how to deal with disagreements between parties about managing and trying common and individual issues.” Id. at *26. “The problem here is not that management might be hard” but rather “that the plaintiffs proffer no plan for management . . . [a]nd the Court has no confidence that counsel will devise a workable plan.” Id. Thus, the motions were denied in their entirety.

Implications For Employers

Ayers presents two key lessons for corporate counsel grappling with how to manage these complex cases.

The first lesson is that the value of class and collective claims often can hinge on the identity and competency of opposing counsel. Where plaintiffs’ counsel is savvy, competent, and organized, the value of otherwise weaker claims can go up. In these cases, competent plaintiffs’ counsel can often be the difference in whether a class is certified, which is often the difference between millions of dollars of potential of exposure and not. Thus, corporate counsel should weigh the competency of his or her adversaries when assessing the risk that a putative class or collective action poses.

The second lesson is that hiring experienced defense counsel and developing an aggressive litigation strategy are critical for success in such cases. In Ayers, Chief Judge Eagles observed defense counsel’s strategy and explained “it has been clear for years that GKN intended to hold the plaintiffs to their burden of proof at every stage on every issue, as is their right.” Id. at *22, n.13. As a result, any delay by GKN ultimately did not negate the deficiencies by Plaintiffs’ counsel. It takes experienced counsel to toe this line and keep the focus on a plaintiff’s conduct. Corporate counsel should consider such experience when deciding who is best to represent their organizations.