18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

50 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition (xi) Eleventh Circuit Harapeti, et al. v. CBS TV Stations, Inc. , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11491 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 20, 2021). Plaintiff, a freelance television journalist, filed a collective action against Defendants for alleged violation of the Equal Pay Act 1936 ("EPA"); unlawful sex discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 ("FCRA"); and for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Id . at *1. Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification of the EPA claims as a collective action, and the Court denied the motion. Plaintiff contended that during the course of her freelance work, she was continually assured that she would be considered for a full-time position when one became available, but she was never offered such a position. Id . at *2. Plaintiff asserted that the reason that she was not provided a full-time position was because the available opportunities went to male or younger female journalists. Plaintiff claimed that Defendants had a uniform policy whereby female employees were allegedly paid less than their male counterparts as news reporters and news producers, despite having identical job duties. In support of her motion, Plaintiffs submitted her own declaration outlining her allegations. Defendants argued that Plaintiff’s declaration was conclusory, and that she failed to demonstrate that there were others who opted-in to join the lawsuit. Plaintiff thereafter filed an opt-in notice for one other female freelance news reporter from April 2016 through July of 2017. The Court determined that Plaintiff failed to submit any additional information, in the form of an affidavit or declaration by any other aggrieved individual who wished to opt-in. The Court opined that the one opt-in notice was not sufficient, given that the lawsuit had been ongoing for over eight months and only one notice of consent was filed despite the contemplation of a nationwide lawsuit. Id . at *11. Further, the Court found that Plaintiff failed to meet her burden to demonstrate that there were others similarly-situated to her. Although Plaintiff’s declaration averred that there were women who had similar job titles to her and who were paid less than male counterparts, the Court held that the declaration failed to explain any details into the actual pay, job responsibilities, or the relevant time period. Id . at *12. Accordingly, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of the EPA claims. (xii) District Of Columbia Circuit No reported decisions. B. EEOC Pattern Or Practice Cases “Pattern or practice” lawsuits brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission are not governed by Rule 23. Instead, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 governs these types of lawsuits. Under the statute, the EEOC need not satisfy Rule 23’s requirements in order to sue on behalf of a group of allegedly injured individuals. Instead, the EEOC must follow the framework established by the U.S. Supreme Court in International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States , 431 U.S. 324 (1977). Nonetheless, EEOC pattern or practice cases tend to involve litigation issues similar to private party Rule 23 class actions. The EEOC launched a new systemic litigation initiative in 2006. As a result, the volume of rulings in EEOC pattern or practice lawsuits increased significantly in 2021. The 33 rulings over the past year covered a wide gamut of issues. In terms of geographic distribution of rulings on EEOC lawsuits, the following map illustrates that decision- making: