18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

452 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition obtaining their desired goods, then proposed members who endured violations all suffered the same injury, which could be resolved on a class-wide basis. Id . at *14. The Court ruled that Plaintiff’s claims were typical to those of the proposed class members because they all stemmed from the same alleged conduct of discriminatory, company-wide policies and procedures restricting their access to the goods and services in stores. The Court determined that Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel met the adequacy requirements and Defendant did not assert otherwise. Finally, the Court noted that Plaintiff moved for certification under Rule 23(b)(2), which permits class actions requesting injunctive or declaratory relief to proceed where "the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole." Id . at *21. The Court explained that actions brought under the ADA were exactly the type of actions which should be brought pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), and an injunction requiring the removal of the existing access barriers, and the modification of policies to prevent the use of access barriers restricting disabled individuals’ use, would be appropriately decided with class-wide treatment. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. Berardi, et al. v. City Of Pekin, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74731 (C.D. Ill. April 19, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of individuals with mobility disabilities, brought a putative class action alleging violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant’s pedestrian rights- of-ways were largely inaccessible to persons with mobility disabilities in violation of Title II of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. As a remedy, Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from violating the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act and compelling each Defendant to undertake remedial measures to mitigate the effects of Defendants’ past and ongoing violations of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. In seeking class certification, Plaintiffs sought hybrid certification under Rules 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Defendants opposed Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. They argued for the most part that Plaintiffs’ claims presented unique fact-based inquiries, thereby precluding findings of sufficient definiteness, commonality, predominance, and superiority. At the outset, the Court noted that Defendant attempted to framed Plaintiffs’ complaint as seemingly describing each individual Plaintiff’s experiences as separate claims for relief, as opposed to evidence of the overarching claim that the City’s sidewalk system was inaccessible to those with mobility disabilities. As a result, the Court rejected Defendants’ construction of Plaintiffs’ claims, and instead found that class certification pursuant to Rules 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) was appropriate. As to Rule 23(a)’s requirement of commonality, the Court found that common questions of fact and law existed in that the threshold question of the lawsuit was whether Defendant maintained its sidewalk system in a manner that complied with the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. As to typicality, the Court noted that no named Plaintiff raised any separate or independent claim, and it found that Plaintiffs’ claims were typical of the putative class. With respect to numerosity, Plaintiffs submitted declarations and cited sufficiently reliable data to indicate that the proposed class could include hundreds if not thousands of individuals, such that numerosity was also satisfied. Additionally, the Court determined that the named Plaintiffs would adequately represent the putative class, and also that Plaintiffs’ counsel had extensive experience in class action lawsuits. As to Rule 23(b)(2), the Court concluded that the requested relief of citywide remediation, contrary to Defendants’ argument, would undoubtedly benefit the class as a whole by making the sidewalk system safe and meaningfully accessible to the putative class members. As such, the Court found that certification under Rule 23(b)(2) was warranted. As to Rule 23(b)(3)’s requirements, Defendants unsuccessfully argued that the claims of Plaintiff’s and the putative class member required an individualized assessment as to damages and liability, such that individual issues predominated. The Court reasoned that this was an incorrect framing of the lawsuit. It opined that individual issues did not predominate. Finally, the Court rejected Defendants’ argument that class action was not superior to individual litigation, and it found that class action would achieve economies of time, expense, and effort and would avoid inconsistent rulings. As such, the Court certified a hybrid class pursuant to Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3). In Re Hotel Booking Access For Individuals With Disabilities Litigation, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21956 (J.P.M.L. Feb. 5, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of “testers,” filed a number of class actions against various hospitality companies asserting violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”). Plaintiffs alleged that certain hotel booking websites were inaccessible to individuals with disabilities, and that the hotels failed to provide sufficient information – either on their own websites or through third-party booking platforms – about accessible rooms and other relevant hotel features. Id. at *2. Defendant Hotels and Stuff, a now-dismissed Defendant in a Pennsylvania-based ADA class action, filed a motion to centralize the litigation in the U.S. District