18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 305 (xxxix) Venue Issues In FLSA Collective Actions Cirillo, et al. v. Citrix Systems Inc. , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17909 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 29, 2021). Plaintiff, a former inside sales representative for Defendant, filed a class and collective action lawsuit against Defendant asserting violations of the FLSA, the North Carolina Wage & Hour Act, and the Family Medical Leave Act, in addition to an individual claim for wrongful discharge. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that she worked overtime hours without receiving additional compensation and that Defendant wrongfully terminated her while she was recovering from a workplace injury. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), or alternatively, to transfer venue under 28. U.S.C. § 1404(a). The Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss, but granted the motion to transfer. In terms of the motion to dismiss under § 1406(a), Plaintiff argued that the State of North Carolina should be treated as one judicial district such that venue is proper anyway in the state, but the Court held that this interpretation contradicted the language of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(d). Id. at *7. The Court reasoned that Defendant would not be subject to personal jurisdiction in the Western District of North Carolina because Defendant’s contacts with the district were not “constant and pervasive,” nor did Plaintiff’s claims arise out of its connections with the district. Id. at *8. The Court noted that Plaintiff’s allegations related to conduct that occurred in Raleigh (which falls within the jurisdiction of the Eastern District of North Carolina) and that inside sales representatives performed their work from Defendant’s Raleigh office. However, since the Fourth Circuit favors transfer as opposed to dismissal, the Court refused to dismiss Plaintiff’s action “in the interests of justice…” Id. at *10. With respect to Defendant’s motion to transfer venue, though, the Court held that the Eastern District of North Carolina was a more proper venue than the Western District. The Court analyzed a litany of factors to arrive to this conclusion, including Plaintiff’s choice of forum, the residence of the parties, the relative ease of access of proof, and the available to compel the attendance of witnesses. Id. at *12. In considering these factors, the Court noted that the Western District was neither the location of Plaintiff’s residence nor the alleged conduct leading to this action. The Court pointed out that no likely witnesses resided in the Western District, and that it could not compel certain witnesses to testify because they lived over 100 miles away from the Western District courthouse. Accordingly, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss, but granted its motion to transfer venue to the Eastern District of North Carolina. Garcia-Alvarez, et al. v. Fogo de Chao Churrascaria LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21213 (W.D. Penn. Feb. 4, 2021). Plaintiff, a former steakhouse carver and server, filed a class and collective action alleging that Defendant engaged in improper tip-pooling practices at its restaurants in violation of the FLSA and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (“PMWA”). Id. at *5. According to Plaintiff, Defendant operated each of its approximately 50 steakhouses pursuant to the same compensation practices and procedures, which were set by Defendant’s corporate office. Plaintiff filed the action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, and Defendant subsequently filed a motion to change venue to the Eastern District of Texas. Plaintiff did not oppose the motion, and the Court accordingly granted Defendant’s motion. In assessing Defendant’s motion, the Court considered several of the public and private factors typically utilized in ruling on motions to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). As applied here, the Court noted that Plaintiff’s case could have been filed in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant’s corporate headquarters was located in Plano, Texas. While Plaintiff’s specific allegations occurred in locations outside of Texas, the Court also noted that a substantial portion of the conduct giving rise to Plaintiff’s suit occurred in the Eastern District of Texas, i.e. , Defendant’s pay practices as determined by its corporate office. With respect to the other relevant factors, the Court reasoned that Plaintiff’s lack of opposition to the motion and the fact that Plaintiff resided in Florida both weighed in favor of transfer. The Court further held that a venue transfer would promote judicial efficiency, and that judges in the Eastern District of Texas could decide issues under the PMWA because “Pennsylvania courts have instructed that interpretation of the PMWA is to be guided by the FLSA…” Id. at *10-11. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to change venue. (xl) Wage & Hour Class And Collective Actions Involving Students And Interns Johnson, et al. v. NCAA, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160488 (E.D. Penn. Aug. 25, 2021) . Plaintiffs, a group of student-athletes at five colleges and universities, filed a class action alleging that student-athletes who engaged in NCAA Division 1 ("D-1") interscholastic athletic activity for their colleges and universities should be considered employees who should be paid for the time they spent related to those athletic activities. Id . at *2. Plaintiffs brought claims claiming violations of FLSA, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, the New York Labor