18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 503 Court precedent, and the good faith defense bars Plaintiffs’ claim." Id. On appeal, Plaintiffs contended that the District Court erred by relying on the good faith defense to dismiss the claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The Fourth Circuit reasoned that the First, Second, Third, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits had held that the good faith defense bars such claims. The Fourth Circuit agreed with its sister circuits, and concluded that the good faith defense applied. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit ruled that Defendants were entitled to utilize the good faith defense with respect to the Plaintiffs’ Janus claim and were not required to refund the representation fees that Plaintiffs paid to union Defendants prior to the Janus decision. For these reasons, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling. Allied Federation, Brotherhood Of Maintenance Of Way Employees Division Of International Brotherhood Of Teamsters, et al. v. CSX Transportation , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149922 (W.D. Ky. Aug. 10, 2021). Plaintiff, a union, filed a class action alleging various wage & hour issues stemming from Defendant’s rollout of its new electronic timekeeping system. Defendant argued that the issues constituted a minor dispute under the Railway Labor Act ("RLA") and therefore the Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court denied Defendant’s motion. The parties had entered into a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA"), which governed the terms of employment of Defendant’s union-represented employees. After Defendant’s new timekeeping system was implemented, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to Defendant demanding that it immediately rescind the program on the basis that it constituted a change in the terms of the CBA and therefore required Defendant to bargain with the union. Defendant refused. Plaintiff then filed this action seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. Plaintiff claimed that the new timekeeping system and related rules required employees to clock-in during a seven-minute window prior to the beginning of their scheduled start time and to clock-out during a seven minute window after their scheduled end time. Id. at *4. Defendant argued that the current dispute was a "minor" one, and thus fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the arbitration boards established under the RLA. Id. The Court concluded that completion of the RLA-mandated arbitral process did not impact its subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim but instead related to its ability to reach the merits of a dispute and grant relief. Id. at *8. The Court found that Plaintiff’s claims under the RLA clearly presented a federal question that gave it subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. For these reasons, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Bishop, et al. v. Air Line Pilots Association International, 5 F.4th 684 (7th Cir. 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of pilot instructors for United Airlines, brought a class action against Defendant, the Air Line Pilots Association (“ALPA”), their recognized agent for the purpose of collective bargaining. Plaintiffs asserted that the ALPA violated its duty of fair representation under the Railway Labor Act (“RLA”) by adopting a retroactive pay provision that discriminated against pilot instructors. Id . at 687. Following discovery, Defendant moved for summary judgment, which the District Court granted. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling. The Seventh Circuit reasoned that Plaintiffs failed to establish a violation of the duty of fair representation because they did not provide evidence from which a jury could conclude that Defendant’s sole motive in adopting the retroactive pay provision was illicit. The District Court had ruled that the record showed that Defendant had non-discriminatory, good faith justifications for adopting the new formula, i.e. , a desire for a simple, facially neutral rule that would be understood as equitable to all. On appeal, Plaintiffs argued that "there is a disputed question of fact as to whether Defendant acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith when it excluded from the calculation of retro pay the most significant component of pilot instructors’ pay raises under the new collective bargaining agreement." Id . at 695. Plaintiffs contended the evidence supported a finding that Defendant’s sole motive in adopting the retroactive pay formula was to benefit a larger and stronger portion of its membership at the expense of the pilot instructors. The Seventh Circuit found that Plaintiffs’ evidence did not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith. The Seventh Circuit reasoned that simply because some contractual provisions may inure to the benefit of a discrete segment of the bargaining unit did not mean that the provision discriminated against other members of the bargaining unit or that it was adopted in bad faith. The Seventh Circuit concluded that Plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact, as the evidence established that Defendant was not motivated solely by a desire to discriminate against pilot instructors in adopting the retroactive pay formula. Id . at 699. For these reasons, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.