Class Action Defense

September 15, 2023September 15, 2023 by Class Action Defense

The Class Action Weekly Wire – Episode 30: The State Of BIPA Privacy Class Action Litigation

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partner Jerry Maatman and associate Tyler Zmick with their discussion of a $7 million BIPA class action settlement announced this month and analysis of developing trends in biometric privacy litigation spurred by cutting-edge technology and the ever-evolving innovation of the plaintiffs’ class action bar.

Episode Transcript

Jerry Maatman: Hello, loyal blog readers and listeners. Welcome to our Friday weekly podcast, the Class Action Weekly Wire. I’m joined by my colleague Tyler Zmick today, one of our BIPA thought leaders, to discuss privacy class action litigation in general and Illinois BIPA lawsuits in particular. Welcome, Tyler.

Tyler Zmick: Great to be here, Jerry. Thanks for having me.

Jerry: I look on the docket every day, and there seems to be just a mushroom cloud explosion of BIPA class action filings. What’s going on there, and what’s driving the plaintiffs’ bar to file so many of the BIPA cases?

Tyler: Sure, I mean, that’s absolutely accurate. It seems for years now that plaintiffs’ lawyers on the class action side have been filing BIPA cases on seemingly a daily basis. The impetus, the sort of driving force, I believe, is really just the possibility of very high levels of damages. It could be a lot of money involved for both class members and plaintiffs’ counsel, especially in the wake of very plaintiff-friendly Illinois Supreme Court decisions. We have just plaintiffs’ lawyers really just looking to cash in and join the many high dollar settlements that have been come into play in recent years.

Jerry: One of the areas of focus of the Duane Morris Class Action Review has been our tracking of settlements. I’m a believer that success begets copycats, and big settlements result in more filings and more plaintiffs’ lawyers attracted to the area. Recently in the news there was a large BIPA class action settlement preliminarily approved in federal court here in Illinois, about a Little Caesars. Could you tell us a little bit about that, and share your thoughts about what was going on in that case?

Tyler: Sure, Jerry, so this is a settlement between Little Caesars, the Pizza company, and thousands of employees who targeted the company’s finger scanning time clock. It’s a fairly old case filed initially in 2019, so it’s been pending for over four years now. The employees in the case asserted that Little Caesars violated BIPA by requiring employees to scan their fingerprints to clock in and out of work without first providing the necessary disclosures, or obtaining their express written consent. Little Caesars denied all allegations of wrongdoing, and denied that it violated BIPA.

This type of case – probably by and large, if you were to count by the numbers the factual context of different BIPA cases – employee timekeeping cases involving fingerprint scanning is probably the most common fact pattern, although far from the only fact pattern you would find in BIPA cases that are being filed.

Jerry: Can you explain to our listeners where you would peg this $7 million settlement kind of on the range of what large-scale BIPA cases have been settling for – either on an aggregate basis or on a per claimant per class member basis?

Tyler: I would say that this settlement of just under $7 million for a class of approximately 8,500 class members is right in the middle of the range of recoveries that we have seen over the past couple of years. When all fees for administrative costs and plaintiffs’ attorney fees are taken out of the picture, each class member will receive roughly $545 each – and that is really consistent with a number we’ve seen in a lot of BIPA class action settlements. And, importantly, if that number of class members stated in the settlement agreement turns out to be higher, the gross settlement fund will increase by $832 for each class member, just to make sure that the per class member payments do not change.

Jerry: You had mentioned this as an older case. Could you provide your analysis to our listeners about kind of the average length of time it takes for BIPA cases to work through either the state court system as compared to the federal system? This one, of course, was in the federal court.

Tyler: Yeah, sure, Jerry. So I think it’s hard to come up with an average lifespan for a BIPA case, just because some can be dismissed very early on if the fact investigation done by plaintiffs’ counsel reveals that there actually is no biometric data at issue in the in the case, and their allegations and complaint were actually untrue, then they’ll voluntarily dismiss the case. Other cases can reach settlements on an individual basis early on, or even on a class basis, early on. Whereas other defendants, this case Little Caesars, for a good period of time opt instead to litigate the case, and really to prove, either at the summary judgment stage or trial stage, that they did not, in fact, violate BIPA for a number of different reasons.

Jerry: Well, in following that mantra of ‘success begets copycats,’ and more of these cases get filed, could you share with corporate counsel what you view as the future of BIPA litigation, the types of claims apt to be brought? I know that in talking you to before, claims are divided into two boxes, one being employee-related cases and others being non-employee related cases.

Tyler: Yeah, absolutely. And that’s a great question. I think, as I mentioned, the most common type of BIPA case, historically, has been the employee. Timekeeping context and facts involving employees clocking in and out – either with fingerprints or face scans. I think, moving forward, we are likely to see non-employee BIPA class actions, and we can also expect to see BIPA cases brought against people that are further downstream than you might think. For example, a company like Amazon Web Services that provides cloud storage services, and is pretty far removed from any “collection” of biometric data that may have occurred relative to an end user. So it may have been collected by one entity, whether it’s an employer or timekeeping vendor, and then sent to another company and ultimately sent to some kind of cloud of storage service provider that really has no idea what’s on its servers. And we are seeing companies like that being sued under BIPA or other companies in similar situations, that are one step or two steps removed from consumers or employees, being named as defendants in BIPA cases.

Jerry: That’s an interesting perspective. I’d call that “BIPA 2.0: The Next Generation.” And the plaintiffs’ bar, I’ve found in my experience, is nothing if not innovative, and is pressing the envelope of statutes like BIPA. Well, Tyler, thank you so much for sharing your analysis and your thought leadership in this area. Loyal listeners, that signs off on another Friday weekly podcast – thanks so much for joining us.

Tyler: Thanks for having me, Jerry, always great to be here.

September 13, 2023September 13, 2023 by Class Action Defense

FCRA Class Action Survives Equifax’s Motion To Dismiss

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Zachary J. McCormack

Duane Morris Takeaways: In In Re Equifax Fair Credit Reporting Act Litigation, No. 1:22-CV-03072 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 11, 2023), Judge Leigh Martin May of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted in part as to the state law negligence claim and injunctive relief under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), but denied in part the motion to strike class action allegations, allowing the plaintiffs’ claims to proceed past the motion to dismiss stage. Judge May struck plaintiffs’ negligence and injunctive relief claims, reasoning the plaintiffs could not identify a statutory or common law duty of care owed to the plaintiffs by the Credit Reporting Agency (“CRA”) Equifax, Inc. (Equifax). As to to the FCRA claim, Judge May noted that the cases cited by Equifax center on instances where a correctly reported credit score was misleading, which was distinguishable from its position that it was not “objectively unreasonable” for the company to interpret 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) as being inapplicable to credit scores. The ruling is a good roadmap for defendants involved in FCRA class action litigation.

Case Background

Equifax is a multinational data analytics and CRA headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, that collects and aggregates credit information for millions of individual consumers and businesses. On May 27, 2022, reporting first emerged that Equifax allegedly had provided inaccurate credit scores on millions of U.S. consumers seeking loans during a three-week period in 2022. According to public reporting in May of 2022, the glitch occurred when Equifax experienced a coding issue once it introduced a technology change to its legacy online model platform, leading to the miscalculation of roughly 12 percent of credit scores. This led to score inaccuracies of 20 points or more. Equifax sent the erroneous scores of individuals applying for lines of credit, which affected auto loans, mortgages, and credit card applications. Plaintiffs in this action, filed on August 3, 2022, are consumers who applied for loans during this three-week period in spring 2022, and were either denied credit, forced to pay inflated interest rates, and/or have a co-signer, due to Equifax’s reporting or artificially lowered scores.

On February 14, 2023, Equifax filed a motion to dismiss, seeking dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims of willful violation of the FCRA and common law negligence, class allegations of negligent violation of the FCRA and common law negligence, and injunctive relief. On September 11, 2023, the Court entered an Order partially dismissing plaintiffs’ claims of negligence and injunctive relief, but not their claim of willful violation of the FCRA.

The Court’s Order

A. Willful Violation of the FCRA

The FCRA was created “to ensure fair and accurate credit reporting, promote efficiency in the banking system, and protect consumer privacy.” Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. V. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 52 (2007). The FCRA requires that when a CRA “prepares a consumer report, it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.” 15 U.S.C § 1681e(b). This includes an obligation to investigate and account for the accuracy of such information if the customer disputes it.

In turn, 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a) provides recovery for willful violations of the FCRA, which may entitle the consumer to actual or statutory damages and even punitive damages. Here, Equifax argued that plaintiffs’ claim for a willful violation of the FCRA was invalid because the statute is inapplicable to credit scores, and the technology glitch was a mistake rather than willful conduct. The Court noted that the cases cited by Equifax centered on instances where a correctly reported credit score was misleading, which was distinguishable from its position that it was not “objectively unreasonable” for the company to interpret 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) as being inapplicable to credit scores. The Court likewise rejected Equifax’s argument that because it was proactively replacing its legacy technology system, it did not act recklessly. Instead, the Court allowed plaintiffs’ claim for willful violation to remain because Equifax’s replacement of the legacy technology system provided indicia that Equifax was aware its system was antiquated.

Although Equifax insisted that each claim requires individualized analysis, the Court reasoned it would be premature to dismiss the class claims. Considering this is a data-driven case, it reasoned that discovery could establish an electronic paper trail supporting plaintiffs’ allegations and establishing cause and effect. The Court relied on these points as support that it might be possible for plaintiffs to certify a class, and as such, Equifax could not dodge a class action at this point.

B. Georgia Statutory and Common Law Negligence Claim

The Court remained unpersuaded by plaintiffs’ negligence allegations, and granted Equifax’s motion to dismiss this claim. The Court opined that Plaintiffs could not meet the burden to plead a duty owed by Equifax. Rather than arguing that Equifax owed plaintiffs a statutory duty of care under Georgia statutory law, the plaintiffs asserted that the CRA owed them the alleged duty of care under Georgia common law. Plaintiffs relied on common law because the Georgia Supreme Court has held that mere foreseeability of a potential harm is not enough to establish a duty of care. CSX Transp., Inc. v. Williams, 608 S.E.2d 208, 209-10 (Ga. 2005).

Instead, plaintiffs relied on a recent Eleventh Circuit opinion in hopes to establish that Equifax’s “creation of a risk of foreseeable harm” is enough to create a legal duty of care. Ramirez v. Paradies Shops, LLC, 69 F.4th 1213 (11th Cir. 2023). But the Court differentiated the cited precedent, noting the employer-employee relationship was “significant” in establishing a duty of care. See Ramirez, 69 F.4th at 1219-20.

C. Injunctive Relief

The Court likewise dismissed plaintiffs’ demand for injunctive relief, requiring the company to “(i) implement new protocols, procedures, and practices that will ensure no further harm to consumers, (ii) disgorge [their] gross revenues and profits derived from [their] furnishment of inaccurate consumer reports, (iii) and inform each affected customer that their information was misreported, what information about them was misreported, and to what entities it was misreported.” See Amended Complaint at 39.

While plaintiffs argued the Court could award injunctive relief because the FCRA does not expressly prohibit it, the Court remained skeptical at the series of cases cited by plaintiffs that contained little to no analysis. The Court was, instead, persuaded by the “affirmative grant of power to the FTC and other agencies to pursue injunctive relief and similar affirmative grant to private litigants to pursue injunctive relief from certain government conduct, contrasted with the affirmative grant to private litigants in other situations to pursue other relief, persuasively demonstrates that Congress did not grant private litigants general power to obtain injunctive relief under the FCRA.” Id. at 22.

Implications for CRAs

Overall, the Court’s order provides guidance that (i) consumer reporting agencies, like Equifax, Transunion, and Experian, cannot challenge the application of the FCRA on the basis that they are not a CRA; and (ii) that CRAs can willfully violate the FCRA by failing to identify, adopt, and maintain reasonable procedures to greatly reduce the chances of a technology glitch that incorrectly report credit scores. The decison further provides insight that CRAs cannot claim it is “objectively unreasonable” to interpret 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) as being inapplicable to credit scores. Unreasonable data-management procedures that undermine the numerical representations of credit scores clearly falls under the FCRA. As such, it is imperative that CRAs monitor, investigate, and account for data-management issues that could leave an electronic paper trial to surface in discovery, and ultimately lead to class action liability under the FCRA.

September 11, 2023 by Class Action Defense

Drug Screening Company Obtains Hairy Win In Disparate Impact Race Bias Class Action

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

Duane Morris Takeaways: In Wilson v. Timec, No. 2:23-CV-00172, 2023 WL 5753617 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2023), Judge William B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted Defendants’ Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings in a race discrimination class action. The Court held that Plaintiffs Marvonte Wilson and Domonique Daniels (“Plaintiffs”) failed plausibly to allege in their complaint that Defendants’ hair drug testing employment practice had a disparate impact or disparate treatment on individuals with melanin-rich hair under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) or under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). This case serves as an important reminder to companies that utilize employment-related drug testing to stay vigilant as to the potential impact of their chosen drug testing protocols on certain populations and communities.

Case Background

Plaintiffs, who both have melanin-rich hair, filed a complaint alleging that Defendants failed to provide them work assignments or opportunities on the basis of allegedly false positive hair drug tests. Id. at 1. Plaintiffs asserted that hair drug testing is less effective on melanin-rich hair, and persons of color who have melanin-rich hair are consequently at a higher risk of false positive test results than individuals with lighter-colored hair. Id. at 2. Plaintiffs filed a class action and sued on behalf of themselves and other similarly-situated workers alleging that the drug testing had a disparate impact on individuals with melanin-rich hair under Title VII and under the FEHA and that Defendants subjected them to disparate treatment. Id. at 1. In response, Defendant DISA (later joined by all other Defendants) filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (“Defendants’ Motion”). Id.

The Court’s Decision

The Court initially noted that Title VII prohibits employers from “discriminat[ing] against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race . . . or national origin.” Id. at 2 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1)). Similarly, the FEHA prohibits employers from discriminating against an individual “‘in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment’ on, inter alia, race, color, or national origin.” Id. (quoting Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(a)). Due to the similar language between Title VII and FEHA, the Court opined that that “Title VII framework is applied to claims brought under the FEHA.” Id. (quoting Pinder v. Emp. Dev. Dep’t., 227 F. Supp. 3d 1123, 1136 (E.D. Cal. 2017)).

The Court reasoned that a disparate impact claim is proper when plaintiffs “plausibly allege that an employment disparity exists with respect to the protected group.” Id. (citing Liu v. Uber Techs. Inc., 551 F. Supp. 3d 988, 990 (N.D. Cal. 2021)). The Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ Title VII and FEHA disparate impact claims because it found that their complaint lacked substantive allegations sufficient to “establish a connection between race and the challenged” hair drug testing. Id. at 3. Namely, the Court held that, even though Plaintiffs raised allegations in their response to Defendants’ Motion “concerning the difference in the melanin content of dark hair in people of different races, the disparity in drug test outcomes between black and white employees, the difference in how drugs interact with the hair of black and white individuals, and the increased risk of false positive test results due to hair products used by black individuals,” “[n]one of th[o]se allegations appear[ed] in the [Plaintiffs’] complaint.” Id. at 2.

The Court also opined that a claim of disparate treatment is proper “where an employer has treated a particular person less favorably than others because of a protected trait.” Id. at 3. That said, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ Title VII and FEHA disparate treatment claims because Plaintiffs failed plausibly to allege that, in adopting their facially neutral drug-testing policies, Defendants “had discriminatory intent.” Id.

For these reasons, the Court concluded that Defendants’ Motion should be granted. Id. at 3. It provided Plaintiffs 20 days, or until September 26, 2023, to file an amended complaint. Id.

Implications for Employers

The Court’s ruling is an important win for companies facing disparate impact class actions in that it illustrates the high bar plaintiffs must meet to clear the pleading phase. In particular, the Court’s decision shows that plaintiffs must allege facts showing an actual connection between the challenged practice and the protected category at issue. That said, companies that utilize employment-related drug testing should be proactive and stay apprised of research surrounding their chosen drug tests and their potentially disparate impact on various communities. Additionally, companies should evaluate their drug testing policies and practices to ensure they remain free of discriminatory intent and potential bias as to any particular community.

September 11, 2023 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Ohio Federal District Court Authorizes Notice Of FLSA Claims In Step One Of The Two-Step “Strong Likelihood” Test And Certifies Rule 23 Class

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

Duane Morris Takeaways: In Hogan v. Cleveland Ave Restaurant, Inc. d/b/a Sirens, et al., 15-CV-2883 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 6, 2023), Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio authorized notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs and conditionally certified a collective action of thousands of adult club dancers in a case asserting violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and Ohio law, including claims of unpaid minimum wages, unlawfully withheld tips, and unlawful deductions and/or kickbacks. For good measure, the Court also granted class certification on the plaintiffs’ state law claims. The opinion is a must-read for employers in the Sixth Circuit facing — or hoping to avoid facing — class and collective wage & hour claims.

Case Background

On October 6, 2015, the named plaintiff Hogan filed the lawsuit as a class and collective action asserting violations of the FLSA and Ohio law. After amending the complaint in May 2017 to add additional defendants, on May 14, 2020, Hogan filed a Second Amended Class and Collective Action Complaint, the operative complaint, with a second named plaintiff, Valentine.

In the operative complaint, the named plaintiffs asserted claims against seven adult entertainment clubs and their owners and managers as well as two club associations and an individual defendant with which the clubs were associated. The plaintiffs later settled their claims against one of the seven clubs.

The allegations in the operative complaint center on the clubs’ use of a landlord-tenant system by which the defendant clubs charged dancers “rent” to perform at the clubs for tips from customers in lieu of paying them wages for hours worked.

On September 26, 2022, the plaintiffs moved for certification of their claims as a class and collective action. The parties concluded briefing on the motion five months before May 2023, when the Sixth Circuit issued its pivotal decision in Clark v. A&L Homecare and Training Center, LLC, 68 F.4th 1003 (6th Cir. 2023). In Clark, the Sixth Circuit ushered in a new, more employer-favorable standard for deciding motions for conditional certification pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the FLSA.

The District Court’s Decision

First, the court articulated the standard by which it would decide the plaintiffs’ motion for court-supervised notice of their FLSA claims. The court described the Sixth Circuit’s opinion in Clark as “maintain[ing] the two-step process for FLSA collective actions but alter[ing] the calculus.” Slip Op. at 7. Whereas pre-Clark case law authorized notice at step one of the two-step process after only a modest showing of similarly-situated status, the standard post-Clark demands that plaintiffs show a “strong likelihood” exists that there are others similarly situated to the named plaintiffs with respect to the defendants’ alleged violations of the FLSA prior to authorizing notice. Defendants after Clark retain the ability, after fact discovery concludes, to demonstrate that the named plaintiffs in fact are not similarly- situated to any individual who files a consent to join the lawsuit as a so-called opt-in plaintiff. Also unchanged by Clark is the standard for determining similarly-situated status for FLSA purposes.

The court in Hogan concluded that the plaintiffs adequately demonstrated a “strong likelihood” that they are in fact similar to the proposed group of dancers who too were classified as “tenants” of the six defendant clubs who paid rent to lease space at the clubs to earn tips from customers without receiving any wages from the defendant clubs.

In support of their motion, the plaintiffs submitted sworn declarations, deposition testimony, and documentary evidence of the defendants’ policies and practices with respect to dancers. The court found that the plaintiffs showed that the clubs maintained a system in which the defendants acted together to require dancers to pay rent for leasing space, often documented in lease agreements, instead of being paid as employees for performing work.

Among the defendants’ arguments opposing the plaintiff’s motion, the court considered, but ultimately rejected, the defendants’ argument that arbitration provisions in the lease agreements should preclude court-authorized notice of the FLSA claims. The court cited Clark for the proposition that it may consider as a relevant factor the defense of mandatory arbitration agreements in deciding whether to authorize notice of FLSA claims. Homing in on the facts, the court reasoned that members of the potential collective action did not all sign the lease agreements and that those who signed the lease agreements had the option to agree to forgo arbitration of their claims. According to the court, the defendants would have a stronger basis to defeat court-authorized notice if they could show that all dancers had to sign the lease agreement and the lease agreement made arbitration mandatory.

In addition, the court evaluated whether the plaintiffs satisfied the Rule 23 standards for seeking to certify a class of dancers on their state law claims. The court concluded that the plaintiffs met the requirements for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3), because questions of law or fact common to class members predominated over any questions affecting only individual members (the predominance inquiry), and that a class action was superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the case (the superiority inquiry).

As to predominance, the court reasoned that the issue of the defendants’ alleged unlawful system of treating dancers as tenants rather than paying them wages predominated over individualized issues such as whether a particular dancer signed a lease agreement. As to superiority, the court concluded that the relatively small size of each dancer’s wage claim demonstrated that individuals would have little incentive to pursue their claims alone. Finding no factors pointing against class treatment of the claims, the court concluded that treating the claims as a class action was the superior method for adjudicating liability efficiently.

Implications For Employers

Hogan is the latest in a series of opinions applying the Sixth Circuit’s novel “strong likelihood” standard to plaintiffs’ efforts to expand the scope of their FLSA claims to potential opt-in plaintiffs. The developing case law in this area reflects a highly fact-specific approach to deciding whether plaintiffs have made the necessary showing to unlock court-authorized notice of their claims to potential opt-in plaintiffs. The opinion in Hogan is significant in that it grapples with the “strong likelihood” standard alongside the well-established test for certifying a class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

September 8, 2023 by Class Action Defense

The Class Action Weekly Wire – Episode 29: EEOC Strategic Plan Update

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partners Jerry Maatman, Jennifer Riley, and Alex Karasik with their analysis and discussion of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2022-2026.

Episode Transcript

Jerry Maatman: Welcome, loyal blog readers to our weekly installment of the Friday podcast, the Class Action Weekly Wire. I’m joined today by my partners, Alex Karasik and Jennifer Riley. Welcome.

Jennifer Riley: Great to be here. Thanks for having me.

Alex Karasik: Thanks, Jerry – Thrilled to be on the podcast.

Jerry: Today’s topic is the EEOC Strategic Plan for 2022 through 2026. It was just published this past month. Alex – what’s this about and what does it mean for employers?

Alex: Great question, Jerry. The Strategic Plan furthers the EEOC’s mission of preventing and remedying unlawful employment discrimination in advancing the Commission’s goal of providing equal opportunities and employment for all people. The Strategic Plan focuses on 1) enforcement, 2) education and outreach, and 3) organizational excellence. The Strategic Plan also provides performance measures for each strategic goal. So for corporate counsel who are involved in employment-related compliance as well as EEOC litigation, the new Strategic Plan is really required reading. You can find a copy of the Strategic Plan linked to the Duane Morris Class Action Blog, where we discuss the impact of the Plan and break down what it means for employers.

Jerry: Jen, enforcement is a big ticket item – it reminds me of the old EF Hutton commercial, ‘when EF Hutton speaks, people listen.’ And as Alex said, certainly when the EEOC talks about how it’s going to spend taxpayer dollars in enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, employers should listen and take notice. What are the takeaways in your mind when it comes to enforcement-related issues?

Jen: Well in the Strategic Plan, Jerry, the EEOC describes its primary mission as to prevent unlawful employment discrimination through its administrative mechanisms and through the litigation in terms of its enforcement mechanisms as well as through as adjudicatory and oversight processes. So the EEOC states that its main strategic focus for employing these mechanisms is through this fair and efficient enforcement based on the circumstances of each charge or each complaint, while maintaining a balance of meaningful relief for victims of discrimination.

Jerry: Well, I know that you can divide up the EEOC’s docket into systemic cases and non-systemic cases – systemic cases being much like class actions, even though the EEOC doesn’t have to comply with Rule 23 to litigate those. The EEOC also talks about outreach and education. Alex, is that something that employers should heed and take notice of?

Alex: Absolutely, Jerry – and one of the goals of the EEOC is trying to really prevent discrimination in these types of issues before they even ever surface to litigation. And the EEOC Strategic Plan does exactly that. It includes programs and events that come at cost-effective tools for enforcement. So these programs are primarily designed to help individuals from protected categories who may have historically been subjected to employment discrimination. Part of the EEOC’s education and outreach involves expanding technology through social media. That’s where a lot of workers are these days and a lot of people in society – and ensuring that the EEOC website and digital tools are more user-friendly and accessible and leveraging technology to capture a wider audience. These efforts to improve education and outreach are aimed at promoting public awareness of employment, discrimination laws while maintaining information and guidance for employers, federal agencies, unions, and staffing agencies. So really, the EEOC is dedicated to educating a large contingency of groups and organizations on what it can do to prevent discrimination.

Jerry: I also thought the aspect of the Plan that talked about organizational excellence was interesting. I, for one, have participated in internal EEOC training sessions where government attorneys came to be trained on cutting edge theories and techniques and employment discrimination laws. I once was an outside lecturer welcomed in by the EEOC to give that training. Jen, what do you read in terms of the EEOC’s investment taxpayer dollars into organizational excellence and what it means at the receiving end for employers in terms of lawsuits and techniques used by the government and litigating those lawsuits?

Jen: Well Jerry, the Strategic Plan makes clear that organizational excellence is the cornerstone of achieving the eeoc strategic goals. So the Plan states that the EEOC aims to improve on its culture of accountability, inclusivity, and accessibility. In addition to that, the Plan states that the EEOC will continue to advance civil rights in the workplace by ensuring resources are allocated properly to strengthen its intake, outreach, education, enforcement, and service goals. In terms of that organizational excellence strategic goal, it has two prongs including improving the training of the EEOC employees and enhancing the EEOC’s infrastructure. For employees, the Plan states that the EEOC will continue to foster enhanced diversity, equity, inclusion, accessibility in the workplace, maintain employee retention, implement leadership and succession plans. And relative to that to the agency’s infrastructure, the Plan embraces this increased use of technology through analytics as well as through the management of fiscal resources to promote the agency’s mission.

Jerry: Those are a very ambitious set of accomplishments that the government is staking out for itself. Alex, at the end of the day, what do you think are the most important takeaways for corporate counsel in terms of this newly published document from the EEOC?

Alex: Corporate counsel should pay attention to what they can do to best prevent discrimination and use this Strategic Plan to identify areas where the EEOC will essentially be focusing on in the coming years. The Strategic Plan is like a roadmap for businesses that they should absolutely pay attention to. Some of the focus areas that we learned about were systemic discrimination, conciliation, litigation, increasing the Commission’s capacity for litigating systemic violations of the discrimination laws., and how the EEOC is really ramping up its efforts to investigate charges. The EEOC’s focus on technology is a really key area for employers, and they’re taking advantage of the tools, such as the Internet, artificial intelligence, websites, social medias, and these types of things to look at where might employees be, and where my potential victims discrimination be, and how we can reach them to both educate them on the discrimination laws and what the key priorities are for the businesses and the Commission alike in terms of handling these issues. So these continue to be pillars for the agency – the areas that we just discussed today – and employers should absolutely buckle up for what will be a very busy four years of EEOC-initiated investigations and litigation.

Jerry: Thank you, Alex, and thank you, Jen, for your analysis and synopsis of this most important document. And thank you, loyal blog readers for tuning into our weekly podcast. Have a great day.

Alex: Thank you, Jerry.

Jen: Thanks, everybody.

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

Court Dismisses VPPA Class Claim Alleging That General Mills Shared Consumer Data With Facebook And Google

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Tyler Zmick

Duane Morris Takeaways: In Carroll v. General Mills, Inc., No. 23-CV-1746 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2023), Judge Dale Fischer of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued a decision dismissing (for a second time) a class claim brought against General Mills under the Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”). In its decision, the Court ruled that General Mills – a company that manufactures and sells cereals and other food products – did not qualify as a “video tape service provider” under the VPPA, and that even if it did, Plaintiffs’ claim would still fail because they did not show they were “consumers” covered by the statute’s privacy protections. Carroll v. General Mills is the latest decision involving the VPPA – a long dormant statute that class action plaintiffs have recently turned to in attempting to seek redress for alleged privacy violations.

Case Background

Plaintiffs Keith Carroll and Rebeka Rodriguez alleged that they watched videos on General Mills’ website and that General Mills subsequently disclosed their “video viewing behavior” to Facebook and Google. Specifically, Carroll claimed that General Mills sent Facebook the video he watched online and his identifying information in connection with General Mills’ use of a Facebook advertising feature. Similarly, Rodriguez claimed that General Mills disclosed her “video viewing behavior” and other website analytics data to Google through General Mills’ use of the Google Marketing Platform.

Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs filed a class action that alleged General Mills violated the Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”) by knowingly disclosing their personally identifiable information (“PII”) to Facebook and Google. See 18 U.S.C. § 2710(b)(1).

The District Court’s Decision

The Court granted General Mills’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ VPPA claim. It held that Plaintiffs failed to satisfy the first two prongs of the four-step pleading test applicable to VPPA claims.

In analyzing the allegations, the Court explained that to state a VPPA claim, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a defendant is a “video tape service provider”; (2) the defendant disclosed PII concerning a consumer to another person; (3) the disclosure was made knowingly; and (4) the disclosure was not authorized by the “safe harbor” provision set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 2710(b)(2).

Like the claim asserted in the previous version of their complaint, the Court determined that Plaintiffs’ VPPA claim failed at step (1) because Plaintiffs did not adequately allege that General Mills is a “video tape service provider,” and that even if the Court were to proceed to step (2), Plaintiffs would also fail at that step based on their inability to show that they qualify as “consumers” under the statute.

“Video Tape Service Provider”

Regarding step (1), the VPPA defines a “video tape service provider” as “any person, engaged in the business, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, of rental, sale, or delivery of prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audio visual materials.” 18 U.S.C. § 2710(a)(4). Importantly, the Court noted that the statute does not apply to every company that “delivers audio visual materials ancillary to its business” but only to companies “specifically in the business of providing audio visual materials.” See Order at 6.

Based on the allegations at hand, the Court held that Plaintiffs failed to allege that General Mills – who manufactures and sells cereals, yogurts, dog food, and other products – is “engaged in the business of delivering, selling, or renting audiovisual material.” Id. The Court rejected Plaintiffs’ attempt to satisfy step (1) by adding allegations in their amended complaint regarding General Mills posting on its website links to professionally made videos. In the Court’s words, these “allegations do no more than show that videos are part of General Mills’ marketing and brand awareness,” which does not suggest “that the videos are profitable in and of themselves” or that the videos “are the business that General Mills is engaged in.” Id. at 6-7.

“Consumer”

The Court next held that even if Plaintiffs had satisfied the first step, they nonetheless would have failed at step (2) based on their failure to allege facts establishing that they are “consumers” under the VPPA.

The VPPA defines “consumer” as “any renter, purchaser, or subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider.” 18 U.S.C. § 2710(a)(1). Read in the statute’s full context, courts have held that “a reasonable reader would understand the definition of ‘consumer’ to apply to a renter, purchaser or subscriber of audio-visual goods or services, and not goods or services writ large.” See Order at 7 (citation omitted). That is, the definition of “consumer” “mirrors the language used to define a ‘video tape service provider’ as one who is in the business of ‘rental, sale, or delivery’ of audiovisual material.” Id.; see also id. at 7-8 (“‘[C]onsumer’ is obviously meant to be cabined in the same way [as ‘video tape service provider’] – as a renter, purchaser, or subscriber of prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audio visual materials.”).

The Court determined that Plaintiffs’ prior purchase of General Mills’ food – an “unrelated product” – does not make them “consumers of audiovisual material.” Id. at 8. The Court further noted that Plaintiffs’ failure at step (2) highlights “the fundamental issue” with their VPPA claim – namely, Plaintiffs struggle to plead that they are consumers of General Mills’ audiovisual material because General Mills is not in the business of offering audiovisual material to consumers. See id. at 8-9 (“If General Mills were in such a business, Plaintiffs would not be referring to purchases of General Mills’ food products to establish themselves as consumers.”).

Implications For Corporate Counsel

The decision in Carroll v. General Mills reflects the recent trend among class action plaintiffs’ lawyers of using traditional state and federal laws – including the long dormant VPPA – to seek relief for alleged privacy violations. In applying modern technologies to older laws like the VPPA (passed in 1988), courts have grappled with, among other issues, determining who qualifies as a “video tape service provider” or a “consumer” under the statute.

The Carroll decision may suggest that the definitions of “video tape service provider” and “consumer” are relatively straightforward, but other cases can present close calls (e.g., whether a social media platform that delivers various services to users, including video content, is a “video tape service provider”). Indeed, courts have recently faced challenges in interpreting the VPPA’s definitions in cases involving, inter alia, whether individuals who download a free app through which they view videos qualify as “subscribers” (and therefore “consumers”) under the statute.

Given this uncertainty, companies that provide audio visual materials in connection with their business operations should take advantage of the “safe harbor” amendment, adopted in 2013, under which “video tape service providers” may lawfully disclose PII with the informed written consent of consumers. To do so, companies should update their online consent provisions as needed to specifically address the VPPA.

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

Maryland Federal District Court Dismisses Class Action Alleging Website Privacy Violations For Lack Of Article III Standing

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley and Rebecca S. Bjork

Duane Morris Takeaways: On September 1, 2023, Judge Deborah Chasanow of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted a motion to dismiss a class action alleging that the website of defendant Jetblue Airways violated users’ privacy rights under the Maryland Website and Electronic Surveillance Act (“MWES”A). Finding that the named Plaintiff lacked Article III standing to bring the lawsuit, the Court relied upon the lack of any allegations in the Complaint that any of Plaintiff’s personal information was captured by the alleged use of a session replay code. As a result, his Complaint lacked any allegation of a concrete harm that is necessary to bestow standing by virtue of suffering an injury-in-fact. Employers are well-served to examine their websites for the level of risk they might pose of exposure to litigation of this kind, which is currently being filed in more and more courts around the country.

Case Background

Jetblue Airways Corp. (“Jetblue”) was sued by Matthew Straubmuller in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, alleging that he and a putative class of website users who had visited Jetblue’s website were entitled to damages from Jetblue for violation of the MWESA. Slip Op. at 2. The purpose of that statute is two-fold: both to be a useful tool in crime prevention; and to ensure that “interception of private communications is limited.” Id. at 8.

Plaintiff alleged Jetblue’s website uses a “session replay code” and that this allows for Jetblue to track users electronic communications with the website in real time, and also can enable reenactments of a user’s visit to the website, and that these constitute actionable privacy violations under the provisions of the MWESA.

JetBlue filed a motion to dismiss. It asserted that that Plaintiff lacked Article III standing to bring his claims. It contended that Plaintiff alleged a mere procedural violation of the MWESA and did not allege a concrete harm necessary to establish an injury-in-fact to confer standing.

The District Court’s Decision

Judge Chasnow granted Jetblue’s motion to dismiss. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in TransUnion v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021), she rejected Plaintiff’s argument that a statutory violation alone is a concrete injury. The Judge opined that “Courts must independently decide whether a plaintiff has suffered a concrete harm because a plaintiff cannot automatically satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement whenever there is a statutory violation.” Slip Op. at 5-6 (quoting TransUnion (“under Article III, an injury in law is not an injury in fact.”). And more to the point, she cited case law interpreting the MWESA itself to this effect, which Plaintiff had not cited. Id.

As a way of underlining its ruling, the Court noted that Jetblue had submitted a June 12, 2023 decision coming to the exact same conclusion involving a nearly identical complaint filed against Jetblue in the Southern District of California in Lightoller v. Jetblue Airways Corp. Id. at 4.n.1. Other cases involving similar rulings are presently percolating throughout the federal district courts. Id. at 7 (collecting cases).

Implications For Employers

Judge Chasnow’s decision in Straubmuller v. Jetblue Airways Corp. provides corporate counsel with a good opportunity to set up a time to talk with their company’s information technology officers to discuss litigation risks related to websites and how they interact with employees, prospective employees and customers. As more plaintiffs-side attorneys file lawsuits alleging privacy violations like the ones alleged against Jetblue in both state and federal courts around the country, many have a good chance of surviving motions to dismiss. Preventing class action lawsuits are far superior to defending them.

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

Arizona Federal Court Grants Pest Control Company’s Motion To Dismiss Data Breach Class Claims

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

Duane Morris Takeaways: In Gannon v. Truly Nolen of America Inc., No. 22-CV-428 (D. Ariz. Aug. 31, 2023), Judge James Soto of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss with prejudice on negligence, breach of contract, and consumer fraud claims related to a data breach class action. For companies facing data breach claims in class actions, this decision is instructive in terms of how courts consider cognizable damages, especially when damages allegations are inadequately plead.

Case Background

Defendant Truly Nolen of America Inc. (“Defendant” or the “Company”), is an Arizona corporation that provides pest control services across the United States and in 30 countries around the world. Id. at 2. The Company experienced a data breach between April 29, 2022 and May 11, 2022. On May 11, 2022, the Company learned the breach occurred and identified personally identifiable information (“PII”) and personal health information (“PHI”) that was compromised. Id. In August of 2022, Defendant sent notice letters to individuals whose data may have been compromised. Id.

The Named Plaintiff, Crystal Gannon (“Plaintiff”), alleged that she received her notice letter regarding the data breach in August of 2022. Id. at 3. In her First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Plaintiff sought to represent two proposed classes of plaintiffs, including one for a Nationwide Class and one for an Arizona Sub-class, related to the data breach. Id.

Plaintiff alleged numerous claims such as negligence, invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act (“Fraud Act”). Id. In response, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that Plaintiff’s case was without basis and the entire case was subject to dismissal. Id.

The Court’s Decision

The Court held that there was no valid basis for Plaintiff’s negligence claim. Id. at 4. Plaintiff argued that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) and the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTCA”) created a duty in Arizona from which relief could be sought. Id. The Court disagreed. It found that neither the HIPAA nor the FTCA provided a private right of action. Id. The Court reasoned that “[p]ermitting HIPAA to define the ‘duty and liability for breach is no less than a private action to enforce HIPAA, which is precluded.’” Id. The Court applied the same logic to the FTCA. Id.

On negligence damages, the Court held that Plaintiff’s FAC failed “to show identity theft or loss in continuity of healthcare of any class members – only the possibility of each.” Id. Under Arizona law, negligence damages require more than merely a threat of future harm, and on their own, threats of future harm are not cognizable negligence injuries. Id. 4-5. Similarly, as to out-of-pocket expenses, the Court opined that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that her expenses were necessary because she did not properly show that Defendant’s identity monitoring services were inadequate. Id. at 5. Finally, the Court recognized that merely alleging a diminution in value to somebody’s PII or PHI was insufficient. Id. Therefore, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s negligence claims.

Turning to Plaintiff’s breach of contract claims, the Court determined that Plaintiff did not show cognizable damages, a reasonable construction for the terms of the contract, or consideration for the existence of an implied contract. Id. at 6. The Court held that Plaintiff’s FAC allegations only reflected speculative damages and did not allege proof of real damages. Id. at 5. The Court opined that Plaintiff’s “vaguely pleaded” contract terms failed to show any language that would inform the terms of the agreement and Plaintiff did not point to any conduct or circumstances from which the terms could be determined. Id. at 5-6. Finally, the Court determined that even if Defendant had an obligation to protect the data at issue, such pre-existing obligations did not serve as consideration for a contract. Id. Therefore, the Court dismissed all breach of implied contract claims. Id.

On the claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiff argued that Defendant breached by failing to maintain adequate computer systems and data security practices, failed to timely and adequately disclose the data breach, and inadequately stored PII and PHI. Because Plaintiff failed to show an enforceable promise, the Court held there could be no breach, and all claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing were dismissed. Id. at 6.

The Court also dismissed Plaintiff’s Fraud Act claims because Plaintiff failed to show cognizable damages. Id. at 7. The Court reasoned “[p]laintiff cannot simply argue that the system is inadequate because a negative result occurred.” Id. The Court also reasoned that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that Defendant’s security was inadequate when compared to other companies or any set of industry standards. Id. As to Plaintiff’s privacy claims, the Court held that there were no cognizable claims for invasion of privacy or breach of privacy, and Plaintiff did not dispute these claims in her response. Id.

Accordingly, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss as to all claims, denied Plaintiff leave to amend her complaint, and dismissed the case with prejudice. Id.

Implications For Companies

Companies confronted with data breach lawsuits should take note that the Arizona federal court in Gannon relied heavily on inadequately pleaded allegations in considering cognizable damages for purposes of granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Further, from a practical standpoint, companies should carefully evaluate pleadings for insufficient or speculative assertions on damages.

September 1, 2023September 1, 2023 by Class Action Defense

The Class Action Weekly Wire – Episode 28: Top Settlements In Class Action Litigation In 2022 & 2023

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partners Jerry Maatman and Jennifer Riley with their analysis of significant class action settlements throughout 2022 and a preview settlement trends in 2023.

Episode Transcript

Jerry Maatman: Hello loyal blog readers and thank you for joining our weekly installment of the Class Action Weekly Wire. Today I’m joined by my partner Jen Riley, the co-chair of the Duane Morris Class Action Practice Group. Thanks for being on our podcast today, Jen.

Jennifer Riley: Great to be here, thanks for having me Jerry.

Jerry: Today we’re discussing I think the most interesting development in the class action space over the last 24 months, and that would be settlement activity. I’m a big believer that one can tell a lot about what’s going on in the class action world based on settlements in terms of what the going rate is to settle these cases – and the Duane Morris Class Action Review has a full chapter on the top 10 settlements measured by monetary values across a wide area of cases. I know, Jen, that the last year was an exceptional year of settlements – what was the major takeaway for employers?

Jen: Absolutely, Jerry. So in 2022 there were more billion dollar settlements than ever before. The opioid litigation settlements in particular fueled record highs as distributors and manufacturers inked settlements with numerous states to pay out for allegations that they contributed to the opioid epidemic in the United States. So all 10 of the largest settlements of the year 2022 were opioid related. Those numbers were astronomical – they included settlements for $7.4 billion involving distributor McKesson and $6.1 billion involving distributor AmerisourceBergen to resolve the vast majority of the opioid lawsuits brought by state and local governmental against those entities.

Jerry: It’s interesting, Jen – having studied this space for going on 20 years now, most years’ average settlements across all areas were three to five billion dollars and all of a sudden have a year where the settlements top $60 billion. It brought to mind for me the only analogous situation was two decades ago when state attorney generals and private plaintiffs settled big tobacco cases – about 20 to 25 billion dollars, a lot of money at that time two decades ago was spent, so 2022 was an exceptionally unique year by any measure. I think one of the largest consumer fraud settlements, the $6 billion student loan settlement in Sweet, et al. v. Cardona Student Debt Cancellation Settlement kind of rounded out the story in terms of big blockbuster numbers across the board.

Jen: I will also note that there were some very large antitrust settlements in 2022. The top one came in at about $2.67 billion in In Re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation. That was an antitrust class action involving claims that health insurance companies violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by entering into unlawful agreements to restrain competition among them in the health and insurance sales market.

Jerry: Well not only antitrust, but also securities fraud – we had the $1 billion In Re Dell Technologies Inc. Class V Stockholders Litigation settled in Delaware as well as the $800 million In Re Twitter Inc. Securities Litigation. Those were robust settlement numbers that also pushed the settlements even higher. What were some of the other areas that you think worth watching in the current calendar year in terms of the potential for large class action settlements?

Jen: Well, definitely the largest settlement so far this year happens to be in the products liability and mass torts space. There the top story is the resolution of claims relating to contamination from so-called forever chemicals in firefighting foam. As of August of this year, all of the claims by local water authorities and municipalities have been resolved in a global settlement agreement. 3M, DuPont, and other defendants will reportedly pay about $10.3 billion to resolve those claims as part of that settlement deal.

Jerry: That is one heck of a blockbuster settlement. The other area where I think we’re going to see significant settlement activity at very high levels would be in the antitrust bucket, and will continue to see large numbers there although it would take a lot of settlements to break the record that was compiled in calendar year 2022 by our calculations checking this on a daily basis from January 1 to the present, we’re at about $38 billion dollars so uh year even if there wasn’t another settlement in 2023 after 2022, 2023 would be the biggest settlement year in the history of American jurisprudence, so still a very, very impressive record being shown by the plaintiffs’ bar in monetizing these class actions.

Jen: Agreed. Those are some impressive sums thus far this year, it will be very interesting to see how the rest of the year unfolds on that front.

Jerry: We’ll be sure to share these results in our analysis with our readers and listeners in terms of our 2024 Duane Morris Class Action Review. Thanks Jen for joining me today and for your great insights and analysis as always, and thank you to our listeners for tuning in to our Friday weekly podcast. Thank you.

August 29, 2023 by Class Action Defense

Oil and Gas Staffing Company Permitted To Intervene In FLSA Collective Action Wage Dispute And Move To Compel Arbitration

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Natalie Bare, and Emilee N. Crowther

Duane Morris Takeaways: In Bone v. XTO Energy, Inc., No. 21-CV-1460, 2023 WL 5431139 (D. Del. Aug. 23, 2023), the Judge Joel H. Slomsky of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware granted RUSCO Operating, LLC and Ally Consulting, LLC’s (collectively, “RUSCO”) Motion to Intervene in a case filed by workers that used its app to connect with a company seeking their safety consulting services. The Court allowed RUSCO to intervene as a matter of right based on RUSCO’s interest in its classification of workers that use its app as independent contractors and its interest in enforcing RUSCO’s arbitration agreement. This case serves as a reminder to companies that provide staffing services of the benefits of monitoring litigation filed against partner companies (and the potential pitfalls of not doing so).

Case Background

Plaintiffs Cory Bone and Luis Carillo were safety consultants engaged by Defendant XTO Energy, Inc. (XTO) as independent contractors through an online app operated by RUSCO Operating, LLC and Ally Consulting. Id. at 1. They sued on behalf of themselves and other similarly- situated workers engaged through the app, alleging misclassification and subsequent failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Id. RUSCO asserted that they paid Plaintiffs directly for the work they provided to XTO, and by using the app, Plaintiffs and putative collective action members had agreed to arbitrate any employment-related disputes. Id. at 2. RUSCO filed a Motion to Intervene to enforce the arbitration agreement. Id.

The Court’s Decision

The Court concluded that RUSCO could intervene as a matter of right. Id.

Under Rule 24, a non-party may intervene (1) as a matter of right, if the disposition of the case would impair its interest; or (2) as a matter of permission, if common questions of law and fact exist between the non-party’s claims or defenses and those at issue in the case. The Court explained that a party must timely demonstrate the following to intervene as a matter of right: “(1) a sufficient interest in the litigation; (2) a threat that the interest will be impaired or affected, as a practical matter, by the disposition of the action; and (3) that its interest is not adequately represented by the existing parties and the litigation.” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. President of the United States of America, 888 F.3d 52, 57 (3d Cir. 2018).

The first prong required RUSCO to demonstrate a “significantly protectable” interest, i.e., one that is specific to the intervener, capable of definition, “and will be directly affected in a substantially concrete fashion by the relief sought.” Id. at 4 (quoting Kleissler v. U.S. Forest Serv., 157 F.3d 964, 972 (3d Cir. 1998)).

The Court held that RUSCO met this prong because it classified any workers using its app as independent contractors and Plaintiffs’ claims against XTO turned “on whether Plaintiffs [were] employees or independent contractors.” Id. In addition, the Court opined that RUSCO had a significant protectable interest in the litigation due to its interest in enforcing the arbitration agreement Plaintiffs had executed in order to use the app. Id. (discussing RUSCO’s successful intervention in Field v. Anadarko Petro. Corp., 35 F.4th 1013, 1016 (5th Cir. 2022) based on its “interest in enforcing [its] arbitration agreements, particularly given the interrelatedness of the parties’ contractual relationships and the plaintiff’s claims, is ‘a stake in the matter that goes beyond a generalized preference that the case come out a certain way’”).

The second prong required RUSCO to establish “a tangible threat to [its] legal interest.” Id. at 5. The Court held that RUSCO met this prong because the Court’s determinations regarding independent contractor misclassification and arbitration agreement enforcement “could negatively impact RUSCO’s legal interests.” Id.

Finally, the third prong required RUSCO to establish that its interest “diverge[d] sufficiently from the interests of [XTO], such that [XTO might not be able to] devote proper attention to the [RUSCO’s] interests.” Id. (citing Commonwealth, 888 F.3d at 59). on this issue, the Court concluded that XTO could not adequately represent RUSCO’s interest in the litigation because Plaintiffs brought claims based on improper payment, and RUSCO — not XTO — had paid the workers asserting those claims. Id. Moreover, at the time of RUSCO’s intervention, XTO had not yet sought to compel Plaintiffs to arbitration so it had not devoted proper attention to RUSCO’s interests in that regard. Id.

Implications for Employers

Companies providing staffing services should review litigation filed against the entities to which they provide staff to evaluate whether the disposition of claims or issues in the litigation will implicate their interest. Staffing companies that refer workers to other companies should ensure the contract contains adequate notice provisions concerning litigation pertaining to the employment relationship. Companies that do not discover litigation that may affect their interests may have to live with results of unfavorable outcomes.