18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

506 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition claims of Plaintiffs Buros and Piekarski for a refund of the compulsory portion of the fees they paid as union members. On this issue, the Court noted that Janus addressed the First Amendment rights of non-union members, not those employees who actually joined a union. Id. at *19. The Court thus rejected Plaintiffs’ argument for a refund of their compulsory fees on the grounds that nothing in Janus suggested that its holding, which expressly pertained to union-related deductions from a non-member’s wages, “should apply to similar collections from a union member’s wages.’” Id. at *20. Finally, Plaintiff Buros also sought a refund of her post- resignation membership dues. However, the Court again denied Plaintiff Buros’ claim. It opined that “ Janus did not address a union member’s First Amendment rights. And the courts that have considered claims like Buros’s have soundly rejected them.” Id. at *23-24. Accordingly, the Court granted Defendants motions for summary judgment. In Re AMR Corp. , 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 2644 (2d Cir. Feb. 1, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of former pilots employed by Trans World Airlines, Inc. ("TWA") and now employed by American Airlines, Inc., filed a class action alleging that Allied Pilots Association (“APA”), the union representing them, breached its duty of fair representation, and that American Airlines colluded in that breach. The District Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and on appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling. The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims on the grounds relied upon by the District Court. The Second Circuit further held that any remaining claims were without merit. Id . at *2. Accordingly, the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling. Laspina, et al. v. SEIU Pennsylvania State Council, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 1338 (3d Cir. Jan. 15, 2021). Plaintiff, a library employee, brought a putative class action on behalf of herself and all other similarly-situated municipal employees alleging violations of her First Amendment associational rights pursuant to the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiff sought a refund of the compulsory portion of the membership dues that she made prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. AFSCME Council 31 , 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018). Additionally, Plaintiff sought a refund of the membership dues that were diverted from her wages after she submitted her union-resignation letter, as well as an injunction to prevent the union and her employer from diverting her wages in the future. Further, Plaintiff sought class-wide injunctive relief on behalf of all public employees who were paying some form of dues to the Union but who had not submitted a waiver of their constitutional rights under Janus . The District Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims on the grounds that she lacked Article III standing. On Plaintiff’s appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order. The Third Circuit held that the suit was properly dismissed because Plaintiff lacked Article III standing to seek a refund of any portion of the union dues she made prior to Janus because she could not tie the dues payment to the Union’s unconstitutional deduction of fair-share fees. In addition, the Third Circuit pointed out that even if Plaintiff was due a refund of certain monies that were deducted from her wages after she resigned, the claim was not a federal one and if anything, it was a state court claim for conversion or trespass to chattels. Further, the Third Circuit held that Plaintiff’s claim that the union could not collect any dues from an employee until that employee knowingly and freely waived their constitutional right to resign from union membership was moot because the she was no longer a union member. In so ruling, the Third Circuit determined that Plaintiff’s class-wide claims did not survive because she had not filed a motion for class certification and her lack of personal stake in the resolution of the claim made her a particularly inappropriate class representative. For these reasons, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal order. Local 1199/SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, et al. v. PSC Community Services, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30859 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2021). Local 1199 / SEIU United Healthcare Workers East (the “Union”) filed a class action on behalf of the home healthcare workers that it represented alleging that Defendants, a group of home care agencies, violated the FLSA and New York state wage & hour laws. The parties attended a mediation, but after this did not lead to a resolution, the parties proceeded to arbitration pursuant to the collective bargaining agreements (“CBAs”) that the Union executed with each Defendant. The CBAs contained an arbitration clause, and the parties’ subsequent memorandum of agreement (“MOA”) provided for mandatory arbitration of all claims under the “covered statutes.” At the arbitration, the parties asked the Arbitrator to determine whether the workers’ wage & hour claims were arbitrable, and the Arbitrator concluded that arbitration was the proper forum for resolution of these claims. A group of Proposed Intervenors – comprised of former employees of Defendants Chinese-American Planning Council Home Attendant Program and United Jewish