18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 45 Plaintiff met the requisite showing at the conditional certification stage that she was similarly-situated to the members of the proposed collective action. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Scanlan, et al. v. American Airlines Group, Inc. , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194693 (E.D. Penn. Oct. 8, 2021). Plaintiff, a pilot and a Major General in the U.S. Air Force Reserve, alleged that he and others similarly-situated employees did not receive all benefits due to them under Defendants’ profit sharing plan. Plaintiff asserted that the plan excluded from eligible earnings the income to which pilots were entitled while they were on short term military leave in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act ("USERRA"), 38 U.S.C. § § 4301. Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23, which the Court granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff sought class certification of the USERRA claims of participants in the profit sharing plan who took short-term military leave at any of Defendants’ affiliates from the inception of the Plan 2016 to the present. Plaintiff also sought certification of a subclass limited to American pilots who were eligible to participate in the American pilots’ 401(k) plan and a subclass of current and former American employees who were harmed and will continue to be harmed as a result of violation of § 4316 because of American’s failure to pay them for short-term military leave. Id . at *9. As to numerosity, the Court held that Plaintiff showed that requirement, as there were approximately 950 American pilots who took short-term military leave and at least 500 American pilots who were potential members of the profit sharing class and the profit sharing pilots subclass. Defendants conceded that there was commonality as to the claims on all three counts, but asserted that employees of American other than pilots or employees of the regional airlines did not have the same company-wide policies. The Court rejected Defendants’ position. It found that common questions were present for all proposed classes. However, the Court determined that Plaintiff’s claims were not typical to all those he sought to represent, as the proposed classes involved 33 work groups across four airlines, many of which had different collective bargaining agreements. The Court opined that Plaintiff’s claims were only typical to American pilots who took short-term military leave in the designated years of each claim. Id . at *17. The Court also found that Plaintiff met the adequacy and adequacy of representation requirement. The Court concluded that since proposed class primarily sought declaratory and injunctive relief, that relief would apply generally to the entire proposed class of American pilots who were all subject to the same leave policies at American and profit sharing distribution scheme under the Profit Sharing Plan. Id . at *28-29. As to the requested monetary relief, the Court reasoned that Plaintiff and the rest of the proposed class would not require individualized evidence for their claims to profit share awards and compensation for leave, as such damages could be calculated on an objective basis not dependent on any subjective difference in circumstances. The Court also held that class treatment would be the superior form of adjudication in this case. For these reasons, the Court granted in part Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. (iv) Fourth Circuit No reported decisions. (v) Fifth Circuit No reported decisions. (vi) Sixth Circuit Ries, et al. v. McDonald's, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 247572 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 29, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of restaurant employees, filed a class action against Defendants alleging that the manager of the restaurant subjected them to sexual harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23, and the Court granted the motion. The Court found that the class was sufficiently numerous at 95 members, such that joinder of all Plaintiffs was impracticable. The Court also determined that Plaintiffs’ claims were common to those of the class, as all members were subject to common factual and legal questions, including: (i) whether there was objectively hostile work environment in the restaurant while the manager was working; (ii) whether Defendants had actual or constructive knowledge of the hostile environment; (iii) whether Defendants took any systemic steps to address the problem; and (iv) whether Defendants were liable for the supervisor’s conduct. The Court opined that the record and the deposition