18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

422 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition measures, including offering vaccines, Plaintiffs had not demonstrated a likelihood of success of proving deliberate indifference necessary to show a constitutional violation. Id . at *2. The Supreme Judicial Court acknowledged Plaintiffs’ concerns with lapses in DOC policies and procedures to contain the COVID-19 threat. However, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the lapses were inadvertent and sporadic, and thus fell short of the standard needed to establish deliberate indifference. Id . at *19. Plaintiffs contended the measures constituted deliberate indifference because the DOC did not undertake prison depopulation efforts. In addressing this argument, the trial court pointed out that there had been a 17% decline in the prison population. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed with the trial court’s ruling that as the DOC was already down 17% in population, Plaintiffs’ argument was not compelling. The Supreme Judicial Court thus ruled that Plaintiffs had not established a likelihood of success in demonstrating deliberate indifference. The Supreme Judicial Court opined that the DOC’s approach of combining existing measures with a comprehensive vaccination program was a reasonable response, which resulted in reasonably safe conditions of confinement. For these reasons, the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling denying the request for a preliminary injunction. Healy, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Case No. 2084-CV-1519 (Mass. Super. Ct. March 25, 2021). Plaintiff, the Attorney General of Massachusetts, filed an enforcement action seeking an injunction declaring that Defendants’ Uber and Lyft drivers were employees and not independent contractors. Defendants each filed motions to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiff could not seek a declaratory judgment because the complaint failed to adequately allege that drivers were denied benefits to which they would be entitled if they were employees, or that there was an actual controversy about the alleged misclassification. Id . at 1. The Court denied the motions to dismiss. The Court found that Plaintiff identified an actual controversy that could be resolved by declaring whether Defendants had a duty to classify their drivers as employees. Further, the Court reasoned that the complaint sufficiently alleged that some of the drivers were deprived of minimum wages, overtime compensation, and sick leave, as a result of the alleged misclassification. The Court also determined that Plaintiff alleged facts sufficient to show that the drivers should be classified as employees because they performed services for Defendants that were within the usual course of their businesses and they were subject to Defendants’ control and direction. Id . at 7. For these reasons, the Court denied Defendants’ motions to dismiss. (viii) Michigan The People Of The State Of Michigan, et al. v. Snyder, Case No. 21-G-00047SM (Mich. March 18, 2021). Defendant, the Governor of Michigan, was indicted for two counts of willful neglect of duty under § 750.748 of Michigan Complied Laws in connection with his role in the Flint lead water crisis. The litigation was related to a series of civil class actions initiated against Defendant and other officials due to the Flint water crisis. Defendant moved to quash the indictment for lack of jurisdiction and to dismiss the case for improper venue. The Michigan Supreme Court denied the motion. The Supreme Court rejected the motion to quash at the outset. As to the improper venue argument, Defendant contended that the alleged acts were committed in Lansing in Ingham County and therefore the venue of Genesee County, where the city of Flint was located, was not the proper venue. Plaintiff asserted that the allegations "involve actions that were taken or not taken in Genesee County," and therefore venue was proper. Id . at 4. The Supreme Court noted that based on state statutes involving venue, it was apparent that the State Legislature did not want strict adherence to territorial boundaries applied to venue in such a fashion as to potentially impede justice. Id . at 3. Further, since the allegations were based on willful neglect, which was premised on failure to act in an ongoing offense that begins from the time the first duty arose, it would be even more difficult impose strict boundaries. As a result, the Supreme Court held that although it was “possible” that the facts of the case would make Genesee County the proper venue, without additional facts from the grand jury evidence, it was not possible to determine as a matter of law that the venue was proper. The Supreme Court therefore ruled that the situs of the crime and venue could be proper in Genesee County as a matter of law, and dismissed Defendant’s motion. (ix) Minnesota Tri-Council, et al. v. City Of Saint Paul, Case No. 62-CV-21-6384 (Minn. Dec. 23, 2021). Plaintiffs, the St. Paul police and firefighter unions, filed a class action and sought a temporary restraining order to stop enforcement of the City’s COVID-19 vaccine requirement for all of its workers. The Court granted the motion and issued a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo pending further proceedings. Pursuant to the