18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 457 not put forth any specific evidence about the feasibility of their proposals, the estimated costs associated with them, or Defendants’ ability to pay those costs. For these reasons, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants as to Plaintiffs’ RICO and ADA claims. Szwanek, et al. v. Jack In The Box, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 32725 (9th Cir. Nov. 3, 2020). Plaintiffs, two legally blind individuals, filed a class action alleging that Defendant subjected them to discrimination on the basis of their disability in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which the District Court granted. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling. Plaintiffs specifically alleged by closing inside seating at night in two of its restaurants and serving food solely through drive-through windows that were available only to customers in motor vehicles, Defendant subjected blind individuals to discrimination on the basis of their disability. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that there was no dispute that Plaintiffs were disabled within the meaning of the ADA and that Defendant’s restaurants were places of public accommodation as required under the statute. The Ninth Circuit also looked to whether Defendant denied Plaintiffs accommodations "because of" their blindness. Id . at *2. The Ninth Circuit found that Plaintiffs failed to allege that they were treated less favorably than non-disabled customers. The Ninth Circuit ruled that Defendant’s policy denying food service to pedestrians at drive-through windows did not impact blind people differently or in a greater manner than the significant population of non-disabled people who lack access to motor vehicles. Id . at *3. The Ninth Circuit opined that the policy applied equally to non-disabled individuals such that if they wished to purchase food when the dining rooms were closed, they must also proceed to the drive- through window using a vehicle. For these reasons, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (ii) Alien Tort Litigation In Class Actions Nestle N.A. v. Doe, et al., 141 S. Ct. 1931 (2021). Plaintiffs, a group of former children who were forced to work on cocoa farms in the Ivory Coast, filed a class action alleging that Defendants aided and abetted enslaved labor practices that took place outside of the United States under the Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”). Defendants moved to dismiss and the District Court granted the motion on the basis that Plaintiffs’ complaint sought an impermissible extraterritorial application of the ATS because Defendants engaged domestically only in ordinary business conduct. The District Court did not decide whether Plaintiffs stated a viable claim for aiding and abetting child slavery. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded. The Ninth Circuit explained that U.S. Supreme Court decisional law has held that foreign corporations cannot be sued under the ATS. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for rehearing. The Ninth Circuit thereafter entered: (i) an order amending its opinion, and denying a petition for rehearing; and (ii) an amended opinion reversing the District Court’s dismissal of claims of aiding and abetting slave labor in violation of the ATS. On writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, it reversed and remanded the Ninth Circuit’s holding. The Supreme Court reasoned that Plaintiffs sought a judicially created cause of action to recover damages from American corporations that allegedly aided and abetted slavery abroad. The Ninth Circuit had determined that although Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries occurred entirely overseas, they could sue in federal court because Defendants allegedly made “major operational decisions” in the United States. Id . at 1935. The Supreme Court found that the Ninth Circuit erred by reversing the District Court’s dismissal order. The Supreme Court concluded that in order to plead facts sufficient to support a domestic application of the ATS, Plaintiffs must allege more domestic conduct than general corporate activity. The Supreme Court opined that nearly all the conduct underlying Plaintiffs’ allegations of aiding and abetting forced labor occurred in the Ivory Coast. The Supreme Court concluded that pleading general corporate activity did not draw a sufficient connection between the cause of action Plaintiffs asserted and domestic conduct. For these reasons, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. (iii) Amendments In Class Actions In Re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215792 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2021). Plaintiffs brought an antitrust class action alleging that Apple’s App Store monopolized application distributing systems, thereby locking developers into its systems and forcing them to pay a commission to Apple for payments received through app purchases in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Following a bench trial in a related action with Defendants Epic Games and Apple, the Court issued a 185-page decision with its conclusions that included a finding against Apple on the merits of Plaintiffs’ California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) claim.