18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

508 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition were current Union members; six explained that they opted-out solely for personal financial concerns; four opted-out because they planned to work as an IP only for a short time; and one opted-out because she did not have time to participate in Union activities. Id . at *11. Further, the Court determined that Plaintiffs’ proposed class counsel, the Freedom Foundation, also had conflicts of interest with the class because they recently purchased stolen information about IPs and engaged in a conspiracy with a former client that led to a criminal conviction. Id . at *12. For these reasons, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Troesch, et al. v. Chicago Teachers Union, Local Union No. 1 , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35394 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 25, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of teachers, filed a class action alleging that Defendants, the Chicago Teachers Union ("CTU") and the Chicago Board of Education ("the Board"), violated the First Amendment by continuing to enforce agreements to pay union dues up until Plaintiffs resigned their CTU memberships. Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The Court granted Defendants’ motion. Under the parties’ collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”), Plaintiffs agreed to the “dues checkoff” section, which stated that the Board "shall deduct from the pay of each bargaining unit employee from whom it receives an authorization to do so the required amount of fees for the payment of union dues." Id. at *4. Section 1-6 further stated that any such "bargaining unit employee may terminate the dues check off," meaning the dues authorization, "during the month of August by submitting written notice to the board and the Union." Id. They also subscribed to a dues authorization section that stated “during my employment, I voluntarily authorize and direct my Employer to deduct from my pay each period, regardless of whether I am or remain a member of the Union, an amount equal to the dues and assessments certified by the Union, and to remit such amount monthly to the Union. This authorization and direction shall become revocable by sending written notice to the Union by United States Postal Service postmarked between August 1 and August 31.” Id . In October 2019, after becoming aware of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018), Plaintiffs each sent letters to the Board and CTU resigning their membership in CTU effective immediately. Id. at *5. The letters also sought to invoke Plaintiffs’ purported rights under Janus to immediately revoke their dues authorizations. They asserted that the revocability restrictions of their membership agreements had been signed "under a framework Janus declared unconstitutional." Id. CTU responded to the letters, accepting the resignations, but informing Plaintiffs that their dues authorizations would remain valid until September 1, 2020, i.e. , after the August 2020 revocation period pursuant to their membership agreements. Plaintiffs argued that the dues deductions violated their First Amendment rights under Janus . Defendants asserted that Plaintiffs failed to state a valid First Amendment right violation. The Court held that any violation was foreclosed by controlling Supreme Court precedent. The Court noted that Janus observed that agency fees and other payments to the union may not "be deducted from a non-member’s wages . . . unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay." Id. at *9. Janus held that "by agreeing to pay, non-members are waiving their First Amendment rights . . ." Id. Accordingly, the Court explained that Janus excluded from its holding those non-member employees who "clearly and affirmatively consent before any money is taken from them." Id. at *9-10. The Court reasoned that by agreeing to pay dues until they could revoked their dues authorizations during the annual August revocation period, regardless of whether they remained members of CTU, Plaintiffs waived their rights not to subsidize CTU’s speech. Accordingly, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (xvii) Class Actions Over Workplace Health & Safety Issues Gilbert, et al. v. Land ’ s End , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156964 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 18, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of airline employees who wore uniforms manufactured by Defendant, filed a class action alleging that the uniforms were defective because they transferred dye on to other items and caused health problems such as skin rashes, hair loss, and headaches. Plaintiffs brought a claim for breach of express warranty as to guaranteeing 100% satisfaction with the uniforms, and for breach of an express warranty guaranteeing that the uniforms would be free of defects in material and workmanship. After discovery, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23, which the Court denied. In the Uniform Apparel Agreement (“UAA”) between Defendant and Delta Airlines, the warrantee stated that the uniforms would be free from “material defects.” Id . at *5. Defendant manufactured nearly 100 different garments as part of the Delta uniform, including dresses, skirts, shirts, blouses, sweaters, jackets, and pants, which used various chemical additives and finishes during the manufacturing process. Since the uniform launch, the uniforms had been worn by approximately 64,000 Delta employees. Between June 2018 and July 2019, Defendant received 2,470 complaints from Delta employees