18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 479 Monroe, et al. v. Jeffreys, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21224 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 4, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of transgender women incarcerated in facilities operated by the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”), filed a class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Defendants failed to provide adequate medical services to inmates seeking treatment for gender dysphoria in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Id. at *2. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and the Court granted the motion, thus ordering Defendants to implement policies and procedures to ensure treatment for inmates with gender dysphoria. Defendants filed two motions, including a motion to bar some expected opinions of Plaintiffs’ expert James Aiken, and a motion for summary judgment. The Court denied both of Defendants’ motions. With regard to the summary judgment motion, Defendants argued that Plaintiffs failed to show that they suffered punishment or other subjective hardship as a result of Defendants’ conduct. However, the Court found that Plaintiffs offered sufficient evidence of harm, “including self-mutilation, actual and contemplated suicide attempts, and clinically significant psychological distress…resulting from IDOC’s refusal to provide the most basic care for transgender individuals.” Id. at *16. Defendants also challenged Plaintiffs’ comparison of Defendants’ conduct with the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (“WPATH”) standards of care, but the Court reasoned that Defendants’ own consultant “testified that the WPATH Standards of Care are referenced ‘for transgender healthcare around the world.’” Id. at *17. Defendants further contended that they were entitled to summary judgment based on their compliance with the preliminary injunction. Yet, since Plaintiffs disputed the availability of Defendants’ allegedly improved treatment measures, the Court held that these disputed factual issues rendered summary judgment inappropriate. As to Defendants’ motion to bar some expected opinions of Plaintiffs’ expert, Defendants sought to exclude Aiken’s opinions that: (i) there was no security-related justification for denying transgender prisoners social transition and housing placement; and (ii) “sound correctional practice requires giving transgender prisoners the option of being searched by correctional staff of the same gender.” Id. at *22. The Court rejected Defendants’ arguments because Aiken’s opinions were grounded in his own extensive correctional experience, in addition to guidance offered by the Prison Rape Elimination Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice. Moreover, the Court noted that Defendants could counter Aiken’s testimony by offering expert testimony of their own or by cross-examining Aiken. Accordingly, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to bar some expected opinions of Plaintiffs’ expert and their motion for summary judgment. Schell, et al. v. The Chief Justice And Justices Of The Oklahoma Supreme Court , 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 19320 (10th Cir. June 29, 2021). Plaintiff, an attorney, filed a class action alleging that Oklahoma’s requirement that practicing attorneys join the Oklahoma Bar Association ("OBA") and pay mandatory dues should be invalidated in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees, Council , 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018). Plaintiff further alleged that the OBA did not utilize adequate safeguards to protect against the impermissible use of funds. The District Court dismissed the challenges to membership and dues but permitted Plaintiff’s challenge to the OBA’s spending procedures to proceed. Thereafter, the OBA adopted new safeguards consistent with Plaintiff’s requests. The parties agreed the revised safeguards mooted the remaining claim and the District Court dismissed the impermissible use of funds claim. On appeal, Plaintiff challenged the dismissal of the membership and dues requirements claims. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the claims. The Tenth Circuit rejected Plaintiff’s contention that Janus had overruled binding precedent in Keller v. State Bar of California, 496 U.S, 1 (1990). The Tenth Circuit opined that Janus did not specifically negate Keller , and therefore the Tenth Circuit concluded it was still binding precedent. The Tenth Circuit reasoned that since Keller was viable precedent, Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a plausible claim that Defendant’s mandatory dues were unconstitutional. Id . at *23. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling. Taylor, et al. v. Buchanan, 4 F.4th 406 (6th Cir. 2021). Plaintiff, an attorney, filed a class action against Defendants, the State Bar of Michigan and its commissioners, alleging that requiring attorneys to join the State Bar of Michigan violated their freedom of association rights, and that the Bar’s use of a portion of mandatory membership dues for certain advocacy activities violated their freedom of speech rights. The District Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling. The District Court based its ruling on two long-standing U.S. Supreme Court decisions. In Lathrop v. Donohue , 367 U.S. 820 (1961), the Supreme Court held that compulsory membership in the Wisconsin Bar as a condition of practicing law (along with its compulsory membership fees) did not violate freedom-of-association principles. Id.