The Class Action Weekly Wire – Episode 77: Chicago’s New Sick Leave Law Faces Airlines’ Challenge

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partner Jerry Maatman and associate Ryan Garippo with their discussion of a recent lawsuit challenging the implementation of the Chicago Paid Leave and Paid Sick and Safe Leave Ordinance, which took effect in July 2024, alleging the statute would impact flight prices and routes – hindering airlines’ ability to provide services.

Check out today’s episode and subscribe to our show from your preferred podcast platform: Spotify, Amazon Music, Apple Podcasts, Samsung Podcasts, Podcast Index, Tune In, Listen Notes, iHeartRadio, Deezer, and YouTube.

Episode Transcript

Jerry Maatman: Thank you. Loyal blog readers and listeners. My name is Jerry Maatman of Duane Morris, and welcome to our weekly podcast series, entitled The Class Action Weekly Wire. I’m joined today by Ryan Garippo, one of my colleagues, who’s here to discuss some cutting-edge litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Welcome, Ryan.

Ryan Garippo: Great to be here, Jerry. Thanks for having me.

Jerry: We wanted to talk about a lawsuit brought by an organization known as the Air Transportation Association of America, in response to a new law passed by the City of Chicago requiring paid sick leave. The law is being challenged, a law that went into effect on July 1, which requires that employers provide workers with up to 40 hours of paid sick leave (and up to 40 hours of paid leave) that can be used for any reason and at any time. Ryan, what’s this lawsuit all about and why is it important for companies?

Ryan: Well, Jerry, it’s a really interesting case. The plaintiffs in this case alleged that the municipal ordinance, the Chicago Paid Leave and Paid Sick and Safe Leave Ordinance, cannot be enforced against airlines because it interferes with flight crew staffing and scheduling in violation of federal law and their collective bargaining agreements. Here, the airline lobbying group stated that the new regulation is preempted by the ADA, or the Airline Deregulation Act, and the Railway Labor Act. These are laws that removed federal government control over the industry to allow the market to influence economic decisions like fares, routes, schedules, and services. The law also prohibited state and local governments from enacting or enforcing a law or regulation having the force and effect of law related to price, route, or service of an air carrier. The plaintiffs have argued that this ordinance would do exactly that.

Jerry: Well, thank you for setting the scene. That’s a very interesting lineup of issues and litigants. My understanding is the lawsuit was filed against Kenneth Meyer, who’s the Commissioner of Chicago’s Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection – why is it that this association sued the city or the chair of this agency?

Ryan: Well, this the organization sued Mr. Meyer because he’s the one who enforces the law. He argued that the law is not preempted at the ADA because it regulates airline employees – and not the price, routes, or services. Mr. Meyer also contended that the ordinance’s regulations of employees would not cause airlines’ labor costs to increase, but the costs are just one of many inputs that impact an airline’s customer facing services and are too far removed to be preempted. Mr. Meyer also stated that the ordinance was not preempted by the Railway Labor Act because it did not involve the collective bargaining process and did not trigger that interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement. He also argued that the ordinance simply established minimum labor practices within the city.

Jerry: So, in essence, the association was challenging the viability of this law and whether or not it could stay on the books. How did the association respond then to the city’s motion to dismiss after it was filed?

Ryan: Understandably, they argue that the motion should be denied. They argued that the ordinance does undermine the airline’s ability to organize with its employees, and that it would result in the employees ultimately misusing the ordinance by taking sick leave more frequently and on shorter notice. This possibility, according to the plaintiff, means that the ordinance is preempted by the ADA because the Act removed the federal government’s control over the industry to allow the market to influence decisions like fares, routes, schedules, and services. They also contend that a certain number of the flight attendants must be on a plane for the airline to allow passengers to start boarding, and if more employees are misusing the ordinance, then the airline will be forced to spend time searching for potential replacements for flight attendants when they call out abruptly on sick leave which will lead to potential delays, cancellations, and will ultimately impact routes and fares. Well, now that the motion is fully briefed, we’ll keep our eyes out for a ruling from the court.

Jerry: This reminds me of kind of the post-COVID situation, where hundreds, if not thousands, of cities and municipalities enacted leave laws, including the sick leave law that you’ve described, so that employers, especially those operating in multiple states, have to deal with a patchwork quilt of obligations when it comes to leave laws such as at the federal level, state level, and even the city level. So a very vexing, challenging area for employers. And this is a key ruling that everyone will want to keep uppermost in their mind in terms of trying to figure out how to comply with that patchwork quilt. Well, thanks, Ryan, for lending your expertise and thought leadership and joining us for this week’s podcast.

Ryan: Happy to be here. Thanks everyone.

The Class Action Weekly Wire – Episode 66: Colorado Stakes Out Artificial Intelligence Frontier With Comprehensive Algorithmic Anti-Discrimination Law


Duane Morris Takeaway:
This week’s episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partner Jerry Maatman and associate Tiffany Alberty with their discussion of a significant development on the forefront of artificial intelligence legislation – a Colorado bill recently signed into law making strides to curb the risk of algorithmic bias across all sectors and uses of AI technology.

Check out today’s episode and subscribe to our show from your preferred podcast platform: Spotify, Amazon Music, Apple Podcasts, Samsung Podcasts, Podcast Index, Tune In, Listen Notes, iHeartRadio, Deezer, and YouTube.

Episode Transcript

Jerry Maatman: Thank you, loyal blog readers. Welcome to our next installment of our weekly podcast series, the Class Action Weekly Wire. I’m Jerry Maatman, a partner at Duane Morris and joining me today is my colleague, Tiffany Alberty. Welcome.

Tiffany Alberty: Thanks, Jerry, excited to be here.

Jerry: Today we wanted to discuss what I believe to be a landmark development coming out of the state of Colorado regarding artificial intelligence legislation, and specifically the new AI bill that was signed into law earlier this year. As a member both of the Illinois and Colorado bars, Tiffany, I know you’ve been advising employers on this –  wondered what your takeaways were at a 100,000 foot level on this new law?

Tiffany: Sure. Thanks, Jerry, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today. So, as many of you know, on May 17th of this year, Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed into law SB-205, also known as the Consumer Protections for Interactions with Artificial Intelligence Systems. It does take effect in February of 2026, and it applies to Colorado residents. This bill was modeled after Connecticut’s ambitious legislation which ended up crumbling the same month due to the Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont’s concerns that it would stifle the innovation of the developing AI industry. So, comparing this legislation to AI laws such as in Florida or Utah. The statute is really the first legislation of its kind in the United States that focuses on what’s called “high-risk artificial intelligence systems”. Notably, it requires that developers and companies that deploy this high-risk AI technology use the standard of reasonable care to prevent algorithmic discrimination.

Jerry: Thanks for that overview, Tiffany, that’s very helpful. In terms of what corporate counsel need to understand about the concept of “high-risk AI systems,” how would you describe that in layman’s terms, and with respect to the range of activities or software covered by the new Colorado law?

Tiffany: Sure. So, the Colorado law defines “high-risk AI systems” as those that make or substantially contribute to making “consequential decisions.” Of course, it’s not clear, but some examples that would be considered as “consequential decisions” under the law include a large range of companies and services, including education enrollment or education opportunities, employment or employment services and opportunities, financing or lending services, essential governmental services, healthcare services, housing, insurance, and then, of course, legal services.

The law does actually carve out specific systems that would not be included in the law – that either (i) perform narrow procedural tasks; or (ii) detect decision making patterns or deviations from prior decision-making patterns, and that aren’t intended to replace or influence the human component of assessment and review. Also excluded from the law is AI-enabled video games, cybersecurity software, anti-malware or anti-virus software, spam or robocalling features and filters – all when they’re not considered a “substantial factor” in making these consequential decisions

Going to what a ”substantial factor” is – it’s defined as a factor that (i) assists in making consequential decisions and (ii) is capable of altering the overall outcome of that said consequential decision, or (iii) is generated by an AI system alone.

Jerry: Well on its face, that sounds quite broad, and I doubt that the exemptions are going to be used to swallow the rule. What do corporate counsel need to know about penalties and potential damages under the statute for violations of it?

Tiffany: Sure, so the penalties are hefty. The law provides the Colorado Attorney General with the exclusive authority to enforce violations and penalties up to $20,000 for each consumer or transaction violation that’s involved. However, the law does not contain a private cause of action. Developers as well as deployers can assert an affirmative defense if they discover and cure the violation, or are in compliance with the latest version of the Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework that’s published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or otherwise known as NIST, or any other framework that is designated by the Colorado Attorney General that should come out with more specific and narrow confines.

Jerry: The job of a compliance counsel is certainly difficult with the patchwork quilt of privacy laws, but what would your advice be specifically for companies involved in trying to engage in good faith compliance with the Colorado law?

Tiffany: Sure, great question. There are key responsibilities at stake for both developers of AI technology and deployers, which are the companies that are utilizing these systems, in terms of protecting consumers and employees from the risks of algorithmic discrimination. For AI developers, there is a duty to avoid algorithmic discrimination, and under the reasonable care standard, it includes several critical steps. So that would be providing deployers with detailed information about the AI systems and the necessary documentation for impact assessments; developers must make a public statement about the types of AI systems that they have developed or substantially modified; and disclose any potential risks of algorithmic discrimination to known deployers and the Colorado Attorney General within 90 days of discovery.

So that’s going to be for the AI developer side. Now, if you go to the other variation which is going to be for deployers of high-risk AI systems, they, too, have a duty under the law to avoid algorithmic discrimination, and they are required to implement comprehensive risk management policies, conduct impact assessments throughout the year, and review their AI systems annually to ensure that there’s no algorithmic discrimination occurring. They also need to inform consumers about the system’s  decision-making processes and offer opportunities for correcting any inaccurate information that’s being collected and allow for appeals against adverse decisions upon human review, if that is feasible. And then the last thing that is similar to the AI developer side – deployers must also disclose any algorithmic discrimination discovered to Colorado’s Attorney General within 90 days of discovery.

So, kind of taking more of a bird’s eye view, the law encompasses AI technology when it’s involved in the consequential decisions, such as in an employment context for hiring and firing. And it adds another layer of intervention to check the AI process, and ensuring that it doesn’t have any type of discriminatory or bias intent. As such, companies have until February 2026 to come into compliance with this new Colorado AI law.

Jerry: Well, thanks, Tiffany. Those are great insights. I think the bottom line is compliance just became a bit tougher in terms of all the things that are out there in that wild west which is the legal frontier of artificial intelligence. If there’s nothing other than what we’ve seen from the plaintiffs’ bar is that they’ve been very innovative and using statutes like this and cobbling together class actions involving employer use of artificial intelligence. Well, thank you loyal blog readers for tuning in to this week’s weekly podcast series – we will see you next week with another topic.

Tiffany: Thanks, everyone.

The Class Action Weekly Wire – Episode 49: 2024 Preview: Consumer Fraud Class Action Litigation

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partner Jerry Maatman and associate Alessandra Mungioli with their discussion of 2023 developments and trends in consumer fraud class action litigation as detailed in the recently published Duane Morris Consumer Fraud Class Action Review – 2024.

Check out today’s episode and subscribe to our show from your preferred podcast platform: Spotify, Amazon Music, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, the Samsung Podcasts app, Podcast Index, Tune In, Listen Notes, iHeartRadio, Deezer, YouTube or our RSS feed.

Episode Transcript

Jerry Maatman: Welcome loyal blog listeners. Thank you for being on our weekly podcast, the Class Action Weekly Wire. My name is Jerry Maatman, I’m a partner at Duane Morris, and joining me today is my colleague, Alessandra. Thank you for being on our podcast to talk about thought leadership with respect to class actions.

Alessandra Mungioli: Thank you, Jerry. I’m glad to be here.

Jerry: Today we’re going to discuss our recent publication, our e-book on the Duane Morris Consumer Fraud Class Action Review. Listeners can find this book on our blog. Could you tell us a little bit about what readers can expect from this e-book?

Alessandra: Absolutely Jerry. Class action litigation in the consumer fraud space remains a key focus of the plaintiff’s bar. A wide variety of conduct gives rise to consumer fraud claims which typically involve a class of consumers who believe they were participating in a legitimate business transaction, but due to a merchant or a company’s alleged deceptive or fraudulent practices, the consumers were actually being defrauded.

Every state has consumer protection laws, and consumer fraud class actions require courts to analyze these statutes, both with respect to plaintiffs’ claims and also with respect to choice of law analyses when a complaint seeks to impose liability that is predicated on multiple states’ consumer protection laws.

To assist corporate counsel and business leaders with navigating consumer fraud class action litigation, the class action team here at Duane Morris has put together the Consumer Fraud Class Action Review, which analyzes significant rulings, major settlements, and identifies key trends that are apt to impact companies in 2024.

Jerry: This is a great, essential desk reference for practitioners and corporate counsel alike dealing with class actions in this space. Difficult to do in a short podcast, but what are some of the key takeaways in that desk reference?

Alessandra: Just as the type of actionable conduct varies, so, too, do the industries within which consumer fraud claims abound. In the last several years, for example, the beauty and cosmetics industry saw a boom in consumer fraud class actions as consumers demanded increased transparency regarding the ingredients in their cosmetic products and the products’ effects. In 2023, consumer fraud class actions ran the gamut of false advertising and false labeling claims as well.

Artificial intelligence also made its way into the class action arena in the consumer fraud space for the first time in 2023. In MillerKing, LLC, et al. v. DoNotPay Inc., the plaintiff, a Chicago law firm, filed a class action alleging the defendant, an online subscription service that uses “robot lawyers” programmed with AI, was not licensed to practice law and therefore brought claims for consumer fraud, deceptive practices, and breach of trademark. The defendant moved to dismiss the action on the basis that the plaintiff failed to establish an injury-in-fact sufficient to confer standing, which the court granted. The plaintiff asserted that the conduct caused “irreparable harm to many citizens, as well as to the judicial system itself,” and constituted “an infringement upon the rights of those who are properly licensed,” such as “attorneys and law firms.” The court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any real injury per its claims, and granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Jerry: Well, robot lawyers and lawyer bots – that’s quite a development in 2023. How did the plaintiffs’ bar do in – what I consider the Holy Grail in this space – securing class certification, and then conversion of a certified class into a monetary class-wide settlement?

Alessandra: So settlements were very lucrative in 2023. The top 10 consumer fraud class action settlements in 2023 totaled $3.29 billion. And by comparison, the top 10 settlements in 2022 had totaled $8.5 billion, so we have seen a downward trend. Notably, five of these 10 settlements last year took place in California courts. The top settlements in 2023 resolved litigation stemming from a variety of different theories, from smartphone performance issues to the marketing of vape products. Last year, courts granted plaintiffs’ motions for class certification in consumer fraud lawsuits approximately 66% of the time. And the overall certification rate for class actions in 2023 was 72%.

Jerry: Well, that’s quite a litigation scorecard. And this is an area of interest that the class action team at Duane Morris will be following closely and blogging about in 2024. Well, thank you for being with us today and thank you loyal blog readers and listeners for joining our weekly podcast again. You can download the Duane Morris Consumer Fraud Class Action Review off our website. Have a great day!

Alessandra: Thank you!

The Class Action Weekly Wire – Episode 45: 2024 Preview: Data Breach Class Action Litigation

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partners Jennifer Riley and Alex Karasik and associate Emilee Crowther with their discussion of 2023 developments and trends in data breach action litigation as detailed in the recently published Duane Morris Data Breach Class Action Review – 2024.

Check out today’s episode and subscribe to our show from your preferred podcast platform: Spotify, Amazon Music, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, the Samsung Podcasts app, Podcast Index, Tune In, Listen Notes, iHeartRadio, Deezer, YouTube or our RSS feed.

Episode Transcript

Jennifer Riley: Welcome to our listeners. Thank you for being here for our weekly podcast the Class Action Weekly Wire. I’m Jennifer Riley, partner at Duane Morris, and joining me today is my partner, Alex Karasik, and our colleague, Emilee Crowther. Thank you guys for being on the podcast.

Alex Karasik: Thank you, Jen. Happy to be part of the podcast.

Emilee Crowther: Thanks, Jen. I’m glad to be here

Jennifer: Today on the podcast we are discussing the recent publication of this year’s edition of the Duane Morris Data Breach Class Action Review. Listeners can find the eBook publication on our blog, the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog. Alex, can you tell our listeners a little bit about our new publication?

Alex: Absolutely, Jen. We’re very excited about this new publication. The purpose of the Duane Morris Data Breach Class Action Review is really multi-faceted. The volume of data breach class actions exploded in 2023. And these types of cases come with unique challenges, including those involving issues of standing and uninjured class members. And these issues continue to vex the courts leading to inconsistent outcomes. Data breach has emerged as one of the fastest growing areas in class action litigation. After every major (and even some of the not-so-major) report of data breach – companies can now expect resulting negative publicity, which in turn often leads to class action litigation. This saddles companies with significant costs to both respond to the data breach as well as deal with these mega lawsuits. In this respect, we hope this book will provide our clients and corporate counsel with an analysis of trends and significant rulings in the data breach space which will enable them to make informed decisions when dealing with litigation risks in this area. And hopefully, this can be a key desktop reference for all those whoever might encounter a data breach class action.

Jennifer: Defense of data breach class actions is continuing to grow into a high-stakes arena. The playbook of the plaintiffs’ class action bar and data breach cases continues to press the legal envelope on how courts are willing to interpret injuries stemming from data breaches and methods for calculating damages. The Review has dozens of contributors, thus manifesting the collective experience and expertise of our Class Action Defense Group. Emilee, what benefits can this offer our clients?

Emilee: Well, there are a lot of different benefits that could be offered. But while a data breach can be perpetrated in any number of ways, the legal issues that arise from the theft or loss of data largely fall within the same set of legal paradigms. The Review provides examination of the recent developments and settlements in the law and the area of data breach class action litigation. This publication assist our clients by identifying developing trends in the case law and offering practical approaches in dealing with data breach class action litigation.

Jennifer: What were some of the key takeaways from the publication with regard to litigation in this area in 2023?

Emilee: It remains somewhat difficult to obtain class certification for plaintiffs in data breach class actions this year, with only 14% of motions for class certification being granted. However, while data breach class actions pursued a decade ago faced little prospect of success, recent developments in the law and subsequent jurisprudence are providing momentum for the plaintiffs’ class action bar. Plaintiffs can more readily show standing and successfully plead duty, causation, and damages. A fundamental question in most data breach class actions is whether the plaintiff can show that he or she has standing to assert claims.

Alex: We also discuss in the Review the impact that the MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation will have on the data breach class action landscape in general. Although this class action is in its infant stages, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has consolidated more than 100 class action lawsuits resulting from an alleged cyber gang in Russia’s exploitation of a vulnerability in the file transfer software MOVEit. The group threatens to publish files to its website, which leaks private data. The impacts of this data breach are still unfolding, but it certainly has significant stakes. The long-term fallout might include personally identifiable information (“PII”) being leaked potentially of up to 55 million people. Some of the affected entities include Shell, TIAA, American Airlines, the U.S. Departments of Energy and Agriculture, the government of Nova Scotia, and the Louisiana and Oregon Departments of Motor Vehicles. So there’s lots of folks impacted in this one.

Jennifer: Thanks, Alex. This data breach litigation is at the top of the watch list as we move into 2024, we will be sure to keep our listeners updated with all of the important developments. The Review also talks about the top data breach settlements in 2023. How do plaintiffs do in securing settlement funds this past year?

Emilee: Well, Jen, plaintiffs did very well in securing high dollar settlements in 2023. The top 10 settlements totaled $515.75 million dollars. The top settlement alone in 2023 was $350 million dollars in a case called In Re T-Mobile Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, which resolved claims that cybercriminals exploited T-Mobile’s data security protocols and gained access to internal servers containing the personally identifiable information of millions of customers.

Jennifer: We will continue to track those settlement numbers in 2024, as record-breaking settlement amounts have been a huge trend that we have followed for the past two years. Thanks Alex and Emilee for being here today, and thank you to our loyal listeners for tuning in. Listeners, please stop by the blog for a free copy of the Data Breach Class Action Review eBook.

Emilee: Thank you for having me, Jen, and thank you listeners.

Alex: Thank you, listeners, we appreciate you!

The Class Action Weekly Wire – Episode 44: 2024 Preview: Wage & Hour Class Action Litigation

 

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partners Jerry Maatman and Jennifer Riley and associate Greg Tsonis with their discussion of wage & hour class and collective action litigation over the past 12 months as detailed in the recently published Duane Morris Wage & Hour Class And Collective Action Review – 2024.

Check out today’s episode and subscribe to our show from your preferred podcast platform: Spotify, Amazon Music, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, the Samsung Podcasts app, Podcast Index, Tune In, Listen Notes, iHeartRadio, Deezer, YouTube or our RSS feed.

Episode Transcript

Jerry Maatman: Welcome back, loyal podcast listeners. Thank you for being here for our kickoff 2024 podcast for our weekly series entitled The Class Action Weekly Wire. I’m Jerry Maatman of Duane Morris, joining me today is my partner Jennifer Riley and our colleague Greg Tsonis. Thank you Jen and Greg for being on our kickoff podcast!

Jennifer Riley: Thank you, Jerry. Happy to be part of the first Weekly Wire podcast of 2024.

Greg Tsonis: Thanks, Jerry. I’m glad to be here.

Jerry: Today on our podcast we’re discussing the recent publication of this year’s edition of the Duane Morris Wage & Hour Class And Collective Action Review. Listeners can find this eBook publication on our blog, the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog. Jen, can you tell our listeners a little bit about this publication?

Jennifer: Absolutely, Jerry. The purpose of the Duane Morris Wage & Hour Class And Collective Action Review is really multi-faceted. We hope it will demystify some of the complexities of class and collective action litigation and keep corporate counsel updated on the ever evolving nuances of Rule 23 as well as FLSA collective action issues in this respect. We really hope that this book will provide our clients with an analysis of trends and significant rulings in the wage & hour space, and enable them to make informed decisions in dealing with complex litigation risks.

Jerry: Defense of wage & hour class and collective actions is really the hallmark of our defense group at Duane Morris, and on this call and the podcast today is over 65 years’ worth of collective experience in handling these types of cases. Greg, what are some of the collective experiences and sort of desk reference attributes of this publication in terms of what’s going on in the wage in our world for 2023 and 2024?

Greg: Well, Jerry, as you know, wage & hour litigation has long been a focus of the plaintiffs’ class action bar. The relatively low standard by which plaintiffs can achieve conditional certification under the FLSA, often paired with state law wage & hour class claims, offers a pretty potent combination by which plaintiffs can pursue alleged misclassification or unpaid overtime claims, for example. So this publication will definitely assist our clients by identifying developing trends in the case law and offering practical approaches for dealing with class and collective action litigation.

Jerry: Well, I know Greg and Jen – you’re the main contributors and authors of the book. Along with about 30 of our colleagues in our Class Action Defense Group. What are some of the takeaways from 2023, and what corporate counsel and employers can expect in 2024?

Greg: Great question. So in in 2023 courts once again issued more certification rulings and FLSA collective actions than in other types of cases. Plaintiffs historically have been able to obtain conditional certification of FLSA collective actions at a pretty high rate which definitely is contributed to the number of filings in this area.

Jennifer: Right, Greg – agreed. Despite the high number of certification motions decided, of the 167 rulings that were issued on motions for conditional certification – 125 rulings favored plaintiffs for a success rate of nearly 75%. Those numbers are actually lower than the numbers we observed in 2022, when plaintiffs had a success rate of nearly 82%. The decline in success rates in 2023 likely reflects the impact of rulings in the Fifth Circuit and the Sixth Circuit, which took a closer look at that so called two-step process of certification. The Review goes into this analysis, and what employers can expect moving into 2024.

Jerry: I’ve always thought in the wage & hour space that change is inevitable, and employers are struggling with keeping up with the changes. And what our clients tell me in particular, is that this book is an essential desk reference that they cite and look to at least once a week. And I think one of the key issues going on right now is the propensity of the plaintiffs’ bar to file lawsuits involving very highly compensated employees, those that bank over six figures a year. And intuitively, one would think those sorts of folks are not entitled to overtime. But one of the central focuses in this year’s book is the Supreme Court’s decision this past year in Helix v. Hewitt on the salary basis test and the exemption for highly compensated individuals that brings into focus another area that’s in the book, and that’s about settlements. How do plaintiffs do in terms of securing high level settlements over the past 12 months?

Greg: Well, plaintiffs did a very good job in securing high dollar settlements in 2023, particularly in the state of California. The top 10 wage & hour settlements in 2023 totaled $742.5 million dollars, and nine of those 10 settlements emanated from litigation in California. This total was a pretty significant increase over 2022, when the top 10 wage & hour settlements totaled almost $575 million dollars.

 

Jerry: Those numbers are rather stunning. My prognostication is for 2024 – I think for the first time ever – we’re going to see the top 10 wage & hour class and collective action settlements exceed $1 billion dollars.

Well, thanks, Jen and thanks, Greg for being here today on our kicked off podcast for 2024. Listeners, please stop by our Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog to obtain a free copy of the Duane Morris Wage & Hour Class And Collective Action Review eBook.

Greg: Thank you for having me, Jerry, and thank you, listeners.

Jennifer: Thanks so much, everyone.

 

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

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

Proudly powered by WordPress