18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 455 did not discriminate against Plaintiff on the basis of his disability because he was denied service based on his status as a pedestrian, not as an individual with a disability. The Court agreed that Defendant’s policy applied equally to all pedestrians seeking service in the drive-thru regardless of disability. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Montoya, et al. v. City Of San Diego, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108191 (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of individuals with disabilities, filed a putative class action asserting claims for violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), alleging that their access to San Diego’s sidewalks was diminished by dockless electric vehicles used in the City. Id . at *4. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23, and the Court denied the motion. Plaintiff sought class certification of all “residents of the City of San Diego with mobility and/or visual impairments who, based on their disabilities, have been denied free, safe, and independent access to public pedestrian walkways in the City, including sidewalks, crosswalks, and transit stops; have been denied equal enjoyment of these walkways; and/or, who have been deterred from using these walkways because of the obstructive presence of dockless vehicles on the City’s rights-of way.” Id . at *6. Defendant argued that the proposed class was not ascertainable and was inadequately defined. The Court agreed. Defendant contended that: (i) the class was not limited in time and included future disabled individuals; (ii) "mobility and/or visual impairments" was not sufficiently defined; (iii) the terms "free, safe, and independent access" were not defined; (iv) the use of broad terms increased risk of confusion; and (v) the level of obstructiveness required for dockless vehicles was not defined. Id . at *9. The Court opined that the definition of disability and the harm suffered needed to be better defined. Similarly, the Court determined that how the presence of the dockless vehicles "deters" any of the proposed class members from using sidewalks, crosswalks, and transit stops was not accounted for in the broad, catchall definition provided by Plaintiffs. Id. at *10. The Court also took issue with the lack of explanation surrounding the phrase "obstructive presence of dockless vehicles,” as Plaintiffs also testified that they were able to navigate around the vehicles. Id . at *12. Accordingly, the Court reasoned that what constituted an obstruction for one member of the class, may not necessarily constitute an obstruction for another. The Court further agreed with Defendant that a time period was needed in order to determine the ascertainability of the class. Thus, the Court concluded that it could not determine a reasonable estimate of the number of people constituting the purported class. For these reasons, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Montoya, et al. v. City Of San Diego, Case No. 19-CV-54 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of individuals with disabilities, filed a putative class action asserting claims for violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Rehabilitation Act, the California Unruth Act, and § 4450 of the California Government Code, alleging that their access to San Diego’s sidewalks was diminished by dockless electric vehicles used in the City. Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiffs’ Unruth Act and § 4450 claims. The Court denied the motion. Defendant argued that it was not subject to the Unruth Act as it did not qualify as a “business establishment” under the terms of the Act. Id . at 2. The Court ruled that the California Court of Appeal recently had clarified the issue, and ruled that the term business establishment did not encompass public school districts. However, the Court of Appeal granted review of the decision, and while on review the decision had no precedential effect. Therefore, the Court declined to grant judgement as to Plaintiffs’ Unruth Act claims. Defendant also contended that § 4450 did not create a private cause of action with respect to sidewalk obstructions. Plaintiffs in their opposition motion agreed to withdraw the claim. Accordingly, the Court denied the motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiffs’ Unruth Act and denied as moot judgment as to Plaintiffs’ § 4450 claim. Pappas, et al. v. District Of Columbia, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5396 (D.D.C. Jan. 12, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of former employees of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”), brought a putative class action against Defendants challenging the MPD’s practice of requiring employees who spend 172 cumulative days within any 24-month period at less than full-duty status to take disability retirement, without offering reasonable accommodations through reassignment, job restructuring, or extended leave in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), and the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion. Defendant asserted that: (i) Plaintiffs ADA claims failed because they had not exhausted their administrative remedies; (ii) the pertinent statute of limitations barred Plaintiffs’ claims under § 504; (iii) that Plaintiffs’ failure to