18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 421 established typicality. The Court of Appeal concluded that any analysis or review of a particular indigent person’s allegation of constitutional violations in connection with claims of systemic structural barriers, whether for retroactive or prospective relief, was an individualized analysis reserved for the post-conviction relief procedure. As such, the Court of Appeal determined that claims of one class representative would not be typical of all class members. The Court of Appeal opined that what could be ineffective assistance of counsel for one class representative could simply be poor lawyering for another. For these reasons, the Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in finding that the requirements of commonality and typicality were met and it reversed and remanded the class certification order. (vi) Maine Portland And Regional Chamber Of Commerce, et al. v. City Of Portland, 2021 Me. LEXIS Unpub. LEXIS 35 (Me. July 6, 2021). Plaintiffs, the Portland Regional Chamber of Commerce and other entities representing employers in Maine, filed a class action complaint seeking declaratory relief against the City of Portland and the City Manager of Portland (collectively, the City) challenging Portland, Me. Code § 33.7(b)(i), a direct voters’ initiative to amend Portland’s minimum wage ordinance that established an emergency minimum wage in Portland. Section 33.7 incrementally increased the regular minimum wage on an annual basis and continued an emergency provision, § 33.7(b)(i), that provided for a higher minimum wage – one-and-one-half times the regular minimum wage – when Maine’s Governor or the City of Portland declared a state of emergency. Plaintiffs asserted that the legislation was invalid under the Maine Constitution and the Portland City Code and that, even if it was valid, it would not take effect until January 1, 2022. Employees at the Whole Foods store in Portland, were granted intervenor status and filed a cross-claim seeking declaratory relief establishing the effective date of the emergency provision as December 6, 2020, and injunctive relief compelling the City to enforce the legislation. Upon the parties’ motions for summary judgment, the trial determined that the legislation was validly enacted pursuant to the Maine Constitution and the Portland City Code. It found that the home rule provision in the Maine Constitution, in conjunction with statute, granted municipalities greater legislative authority and therefore expanded the scope of direct voter initiatives. Accordingly, the trial court granted summary judgment against Plaintiffs on their validity claims. However, the trial court agreed with Plaintiffs to the extent that the language of the emergency provision was unambiguous and established an effective date of January 1, 2022. Plaintiffs appealed from the judgment declaring that the emergency provision was valid, and the Intervenors cross-appealed from the determination that the emergency provision did not become effective until January 1, 2022. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed the judgment of the trial court in all respects. Plaintiffs argued on appeal that the emergency provision was not validly enacted under the Maine Constitution and the Portland City Code because the initiative was not limited to exclusively municipal affairs. Plaintiffs asserted that the home rule provision of the Maine Constitution was irrelevant because it gave greater power to municipalities as political subdivisions of the State but did not expand the scope of direct voters’ initiatives. In this regard the Supreme Court disagreed with Plaintiffs and held that § 33.7 fell into the category of local or municipal affairs and was validly enacted pursuant to the Maine Constitution. In addition, the Supreme Court held that the trial court did not err by determining the emergency minimum wage provision was not effective until January 1, 2022, because this was the date provided in the unambiguous language of § 33.7(b)(i). Because the emergency provision itself provided an effective date, the Supreme Court ruled that Code § 9-42 did not apply as the Intervenors argued. For these reasons the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed the judgment of the trial court. (vii) Massachusetts Foster, et al. v. Massachusetts Commissioner Of Corrections, 2021 Mass. LEXIS 646 (Mass. Nov. 18, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of inmates in Massachusetts Department of Correction (“DOC”) facilities, filed a class action contending that the conditions of their confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Through a series of appeals, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts previously had denied Plaintiffs’ first motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding that Plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success of proving deliberate indifference to inmates’ health (“ Foster I ”). Id . at *1-2. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a second motion for a preliminary injunction, which the trial court also denied. On appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court again determined that because the DOC continued to implement the measures that were discussed in Foster I, and took additional