{"id":1709,"date":"2024-08-25T22:12:23","date_gmt":"2024-08-26T02:12:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=1709"},"modified":"2024-08-25T22:12:28","modified_gmt":"2024-08-26T02:12:28","slug":"california-federal-court-certifies-class-of-hundreds-of-thousands-of-job-seekers-alleging-they-were-subjected-to-offensive-and-unrelated-medical-questions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2024\/08\/25\/california-federal-court-certifies-class-of-hundreds-of-thousands-of-job-seekers-alleging-they-were-subjected-to-offensive-and-unrelated-medical-questions\/","title":{"rendered":"California Federal Court Certifies Class Of Hundreds Of Thousands Of Job Seekers Alleging They Were Subjected To Offensive And Unrelated Medical Questions"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>By Meriel Kim, Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., and Jennifer A. Riley<\/b><\/p>\n

Duane Morris Takeaways: <\/i><\/b>In Raines, et al. v. U.S. Healthworks Medical Group, Case No. 19-CV-1539 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2024), Judge Dana M. Sabraw of the U.S. District Court for Southern District of California recently certified<\/a> a class consisting of every applicant for a paid position who underwent a post-offer, pre-placement examination and allegedly received the employer\u2019s health history questionnaire pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3). This case gives a warning to businesses acting as agents for employers in the on-boarding process. <\/i><\/p>\n

Case Background <\/u><\/b><\/p>\n

Under California\u2019s Fair Employment and Housing Act (\u201cFEHA\u201d), Cal. Gov\u2019t. Code \u00a7 12900, et seq<\/i>, an employer can condition an employment offer upon the job application passing a pre-placement examination (\u201cPPE\u201d) only if the examinations are related to the job and consistent with business necessity.\u00a0 Gov\u2019t Code\u00a0 12940(e). \u00a0<\/i>In this case, Plaintiffs Kristina Raines and Darrick Figg, two applicants for jobs, filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the PPE involved \u201cintrusive, highly offensive, overbroad, and unrelated\u201d medical questions on a standardized health history questionnaire (\u201cHHQ\u201d), used by Defendant U.S. Healthwors Medical Group (\u201cUSHW\u201d), an occupational health provider that acted on behalf of employers. Id.<\/i> at 1.<\/p>\n

After applying for a food service position, Plaintiff Raines allegedly answered all of the 150 questions on the HHQ and save for one she thought completely unrelated to her job duties.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.\u00a0 The employer then allegedly revoked its employment offer to Raines because she refused to complete the medical examination.\u00a0 Id. <\/i>at 3. <\/i>\u00a0Plaintiff Figg alleged that, like Raines, USHW directed him to complete the same HHQ for a volunteer position.\u00a0 Id.<\/i>\u00a0 Figg answered all of the questions, and his employer ultimately hired him as an unpaid volunteer. Id<\/i>.<\/p>\n

In their complaint, Plaintiffs Raines and Figg claimed, individually and on behalf of putative class members, that USHW\u2019s medical examinations:\u00a0 (1) violated the FEHA; (2) violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code \u00a7 51, et seq<\/i>.; (3) intruded on Plaintiffs\u2019 right to seclusion; and (4) violated California\u2019s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Business & Professions Code \u00a7 17200, et seq<\/i>.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.\u00a0 Plaintiffs sought to certify a class under the FEHA against USHW consisting of 370,000 job applicants for both paid and unpaid positions who underwent a PPE and were subjected to USHW\u2019s standardized HHQ at one of its approximately 78 facilities in California between October 23, 2017, and December 31, 2018.\u00a0 Id. <\/i>at *4.<\/p>\n

The Court\u2019s Class Certification Ruling<\/u><\/b><\/p>\n

The Court examined all prerequisites under Rule 23(a), including numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 6.\u00a0 The Court held that Plaintiff Raines met all of the prerequisites under Rule 23(a) but that Plaintiff Figg failed to satisfy the typicality requirement because he was not an applicant for a paid position and therefore did not attain employee status under the FEHA.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 8.<\/p>\n

The Court then examined the requirements under Rule 23(b)(3), which calls for two separate inquiries, including:\u00a0 (1) whether the issues of fact or law common to the class \u201cpredominate\u201d over issues unique to individual class members; and (2) whether the proposed class action is \u201csuperior\u201d to other methods available for adjudicating the controversy.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 9.\u00a0 The Court found that Plaintiffs\u2019 proposed class met both requirements and certified the class.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 18.<\/p>\n

In reaching its conclusion, the Court determined that:\u00a0 (1) USHW \u201cadministered the PPEs on behalf of and at the direction of employers;\u201d (2) all class members received the same HHQ from USHW regardless of the duties or functions of the job conditionality offered; and (3) at least one question on the HHQ was not relevant to any job.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 14-15.\u00a0 The Court held that, given such evidence, whether USHW acted on behalf of referring employers and engaged FEHA-related activities by administering a medical questionnaire could be adjudicated on a class-wide basis.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at *15.<\/p>\n

The Court further ruled that Plaintiffs\u2019 common evidence also addressed injury, causation, and damages because the alleged injury to class members was caused by their being subjected to overbroad and offensive medical inquiries from a standing HHQ in violation of \u00a7 12940(e).\u00a0 Id<\/i>.\u00a0 Because Plaintiffs were pursuing only nominal and punitive damages, the Court disagreed that it would need to engage in thousands of individualized inquiries among class members to properly assess damages.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/u><\/b><\/p>\n

This class certification ruling shows how a court can use the workers\u2019 common evidence to resolve class-wide agency issue.\u00a0 Additionally, the massive number of potential class members pursuing only nominal and punitive damages convinced the Court to certify the class.\u00a0 The decision further implicates the potential hurdles faced by businesses acting as \u201cagents\u201d of referring employers in challenging putative class actions under the FEHA.\u00a0 Businesses acting as agents should carefully evaluate whether their practices are in compliance with FEHA as this ruling confirms that the FEHA\u2019s definition of \u201cemployer\u201d may include employer\u2019s agents.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Meriel Kim, Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., and Jennifer A. Riley Duane Morris Takeaways: In Raines, et al. v. U.S. Healthworks Medical Group, Case No. 19-CV-1539 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2024), Judge Dana M. Sabraw of the U.S. District Court for Southern District of California recently certified a class consisting of every applicant for a … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “California Federal Court Certifies Class Of Hundreds Of Thousands Of Job Seekers Alleging They Were Subjected To Offensive And Unrelated Medical Questions”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":583,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[37],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[30],"class_list":["post-1709","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-class-certification-motions"],"authors":[{"term_id":30,"user_id":583,"is_guest":0,"slug":"classactiondefense","display_name":"Class Action Defense","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2020\/10\/dmlogo.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1709","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/583"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1709"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1709\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1709"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1709"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1709"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=1709"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}