18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

428 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition Plaintiffs’ allegations, the purposes of scheduling premiums under the FWWL was to minimize unfair and harmful scheduling practices in the fast food industry, and thus were enacted as a mechanism for incentivizing compliance by employers. Id . at *5. The Appellate Division determined that since the FWWL was enacted, the amount of scheduling premium violations found in the giant fast food industry was de minimis . Accordingly, the Appellate Division affirmed the order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Marciano, et al. v. De Blasio, Case No. 160914/21 (N.Y. Super. Ct. Dec. 8, 2021) . Plaintiff, a police detective, filed a class action and a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to block the City of New York from enforcing its COVID-19 vaccine mandate for public-sector workers. The vaccine mandate was issued by Mayor Bill De Blasio, and required mandatory vaccination for approximately 160,000 public-sector employees, including police, firefighters, and sanitation workers. Plaintiff argued that he had natural immunity after recovering from COVID-19 and that requiring him to get vaccinated violated his Constitutional rights, including rights under the First, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiff further asserted that the issuance of the vaccination mandate violated various New York State statutes, as well as New York City laws, codes, and rules. The Court declined to address the merits of Plaintiff’s claims, but determined a stay from enforcement of the vaccine mandate was reasonable pending a hearing on the petition for the temporary restraining order. New York, et al. v. McKinsey & Co. Inc., Case No. 2021-400001 (N.Y. Super. Ct. March 12, 2021). The State of New York brought an enforcement action against Defendant, a consulting firm, based upon the role that Defendant played in the opioid epidemic. The parties reached a settlement agreement and the trial court approved an agreement between the parties over the objections of counties and municipalities that were parties to In Re Opioid Litigation pending in Genesee County, New York. Plaintiffs in that litigation sought to intervene and object to terms set forth in the proposed agreement on the basis that it could potentially block them from pursuing their own claims against Defendant. The genesis of the dispute was found in the provision of the proposed agreement that designated the scope of “Released Claims” The State of New York agreed to release Defendant and its past and present officers, directors, partners, employees, representatives, agents, affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, operating companies, predecessors, assigns and successors from all claims that the Attorney General was authorized by law to bring arising from or related to the covered conduct, including, without limitation, any and all acts, failures to act, conduct, statements, errors, omissions, breaches of duty, services, advice, work, engagements, events, transactions or other activity of any kind whatsoever occurring up to and including the effective date of the judgment. Released claims included, without limitation, claims that were or could have been brought by the State of New York under its consumer protection and unfair trade practices law, RICO laws, false claims laws, and claims for public nuisance, together with any related common law and equitable claims for damages, equitable monetary relief or other relief. In its order, the Court agreed with the parties that the issue of whether the provision would release Defendant from certain legal claims brought by other political sub-divisions was not ripe for determination. The Court determined that the legal question regarding the scope of the release would only properly be presented for a ruling on a motion that sought dismissal on the basis of the release. Because that issue was not properly before the Court, it entered judgment in the matter pursuant to the parties agreement. (xiii) North Carolina McMillian, et al. v. Blue Ridge Cos., Case No. 2021-160 (N.C. Dec. 17, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of apartment complex tenants, filed a class action alleging that Defendant violated the North Carolina Residential Rental Agreements Act (“NCRRAA”) by unduly threatening eviction assessment fees and eviction to tenants behind on their rent via collection letters prior to the time that summary ejection proceedings were complete. The trial court previously had granted class certification to three subclasses of tenants. On appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling. Defendant first challenged the trial court’s ruling granting class certification to a class of those tenants who received a collection letter. Defendant argued that certification of the collection letter class was erroneous because each class member’s claims would be unique and individualized, and thus the claims were not suitable for class treatment. The Supreme Court rejected this argument. It found that the alleged injury was not grounded in the individualized subjective reaction to the letter and resulting injury, but rather in the statutory violation. Further, the Supreme Court ruled that individualized damages calculations did not undermine the ability to find a class-wide theory of liability. The Supreme Court held that the trial court