18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

204 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition benefit the employer." Id . at *4. The Court reasoned that was is clear that the mandatory pre-shift COVID-19 screenings were "controlled or required by the employer," and therefore the question turned on whether they "primarily benefit the employer" under the second prong of the definition of "place of work." Id . at *11. Plaintiff argued that the screenings primarily benefitted Defendant since they would reduce absenteeism due to the spread of COVID-19 or required quarantines and prevent an entire facility from closing due to an outbreak. Id . at *13. Defendant argued that the screenings primarily benefitted employees and the broader public by protecting them from the highly contagious virus. Id . The Court ruled that Plaintiff should be entitled to discovery on this issue, and thus the proposed amendment would not be futile. Accordingly, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint. Young, et al. v. I Love This Bar LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130795 (S.D. Ohio July 13, 2021). Plaintiff, a bartender, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. The Court previously had granted Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Defendant thereafter filed counterclaims alleging that Plaintiff engaged in theft at the restaurant. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for leave to amend her complaint to assert an FLSA retaliation claim. The Court granted the motion. The Court noted that pursuant to Rule 15(a), Plaintiff was permitted to amend to include a claim for FLSA retaliation. The Court explained that that "counterclaims can support a retaliation claim when the counterclaims are baseless, brought in bad faith, brought with a retaliatory motive and lack a reasonable basis in law and fact, or are designed to deter claimants from seeking legal redress because of their in terrorem effect." Id . at *4. The Court found that since Plaintiff was asserting that Defendant filed a "meritless" counterclaim against her in retaliation for filing the lawsuit, amendment of the complaint should be permitted. Id . The Court held that since the amendment standard is liberal, Plaintiff sufficiently satisfied that standard. Id . Accordingly, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend. (ii) Arbitration Of Wage & Hour Class And Collective Claims Adams, et al. v. Parts Distribution Xpress, Inc ., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52822 (E.D. Penn. March 22, 2021). Plaintiff, a delivery driver, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant misclassified drivers as independent contractors and thereby failed to pay them overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to an agreement drivers signed at the commencement of their employment. The Court granted the motion. Plaintiff asserted that the transportation worker exemption in the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") exempted drivers from arbitration. The arbitration agreement at issue stated that the parties agreed "to arbitrate any dispute arising between them, instead of engaging in litigation before a judge or jury." Id. at *5. Defendant argued that the transportation worker exemption was not applicable to Plaintiff because it only applied with regard to interstate commerce, which Defendant contended that Plaintiff failed to allege as a part of her duties as a driver. Alternatively, Defendant argued that even if the exemption applied, Pennsylvania law should apply and compel Plaintiff to submit the claims to arbitration. In response, Plaintiff contended that the driving that she provided was part of the flow of interstate commerce, even if she did not actually move over state lines. Specifically, Plaintiff asserted that she transported auto parts, which were produced in various states and countries. The Court agreed with Plaintiff that there was significant evidence that the exemption could apply to drivers in her position. However, the Court agreed with Defendant that even if the exemption applied, Pennsylvania law applied and it rendered the arbitration agreement enforceable. The Court found that according to the parties’ agreement, in the event of an arbitration agreement falling within the scope of the transportation worker exemption, the parties should proceed “as if the [FAA] had never been enacted,” or rather, the arbitration agreement could be enforced pursuant to state law rather than the FAA. Id . at *9. The Court reasoned that the arbitration agreement’s "unambiguous" selection of the FAA did not invalidate the entire agreement in the event that Plaintiff was found to qualify for the transportation worker exemption. Id . at *6. The Court thus determined that Pennsylvania law should apply to the agreement. Finding that the state law applied, and that Plaintiff did not challenge the validity of the arbitration agreement itself nor argue that the FLSA claim fell outside its scope, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel. Andrews, et al. v. Michaels Store, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201305 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of retail store employees, filed a class action alleging that Defendant failed to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation and failed to provide required rest breaks in violation of the California Labor Code. Defendant moved to compel arbitration of Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to arbitration agreements they signed at the