18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 527 paramilitary organizations, and hospitals. Furthermore, the Court found that Defendant’s amended policy suffered from the same constitutional issues because Defendant attempted to justify it on the same grounds, i.e. , that political and social-protest speech can be disruptive to the workplace. As to the final factors in determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction, the Court also noted that Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm by losing their First Amendment freedoms absent an injunction, and that granting the injunction would not greatly harm Defendant while simultaneously benefiting the public at large. Consequently, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Archuleta, et al. v. Triad National Security, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216706 (D. N.Mex. Nov. 8, 2021). Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief to reinstate them to their employment positions after they were placed on leave pursuant to Defendants’ mandatory COVID-19 vaccine policy. Plaintiffs contended that they had valid religious exemptions to the mandatory vaccine policy and argued that Defendants violated their constitutional rights and federal statutory rights. Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to an arbitration agreement they signed at the commencement of their employment. The Court ruled that the parties entered into a valid arbitration agreement and agreed to arbitrate work-related claims, including whether the claims in this case fell within the arbitration clause. Id . at *5-6. The Court opined that the arbitration agreement applied to all claims "arising out of or related to” Plaintiffs’ “employment" and expressly waived “the right to take any such dispute” in a judicial forum. Id . at *10. The Court reasoned that the agreement was valid and enforceable because both sides were bound by the arbitration provision, and neither party pointed to any language in the contract that would unilaterally give a party the ability to disregard the arbitration provision. Plaintiffs argued that the employment agreement and arbitration provision lacked consideration because their employment was at-will. Id . at *11. The Court rejected this argument. It noted that an arbitration provision that mutually binds the parties may provide consideration. Plaintiffs also argued that the class action waiver in the agreement was not enforceable because it was unconscionable under New Mexico law and barred by New Mexico statutes. Id. at *12. The Court agreed with Defendant’s assertion that it need not decide whether the specific claims or the motion for preliminary injunction were arbitrable, as the parties clearly and unmistakably delegated arbitrability to the arbitrator by incorporating the American Arbitration Association rules into the agreements. Id . at *13. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiffs’ claims. Arrison, et al. v. Wal-Mart Inc., Case No. 21-CV-481 (D. Ariz. Oct. 29, 2021). Plaintiffs filed a class action alleging that Defendant’s policy requiring employees to arrive prior to their shifts to undergo unpaid, mandatory COVID-19 screenings violated the Arizona Wage Law. Plaintiffs also brought a claim for unjust enrichment. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim, and the Court denied the motion. Plaintiffs asserted that Defendant implemented a company-wide policy requiring mandatory screening in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which took approximately 10 to 15 minutes per day. Plaintiffs were not able to clock-in for their shift until after they completed the screening. Plaintiffs contended that they should be compensated for this time as part of their work time. Defendant argued that Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim failed because Plaintiffs did not allege that Defendant was enriched at Plaintiffs’ expense because the COVID-19 screenings benefited both Plaintiffs and Defendant. The Court disagreed with the defense position. It found that Plaintiffs asserted that they were negatively impacted because they were required to show up 10 to 15 minutes early and were not compensated for time they could have used for their own purposes if not for Defendant’s policy. The Court reasoned that under the facts of the complaint, it would unjust for Defendant to retain the money it failed to pay employees for extra time performing tasks on Defendant’s behalf. Id . at 5. For these reasons, the Court held that Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged unjust enrichment to survive dismissal. Bacon, et al. v. Woodward, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215778 (E.D. Wash. Nov. 8, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of firefighters employed by the City of Spokane, filed a class action seeking declaratory relief, a temporary restraining order, and/or a preliminary injunction finding that the City’s Proclamation mandating COVID-19 vaccines for city-employed firefighters violated Plaintiffs’ state and constitutional rights. The Court denied the request. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants violated their procedural due process right when they failed to support their requested exemptions or proposed accommodations. The Court explained that when a policy is generally applicable, employees are not "entitled to process above and beyond the notice provided by the enactment and publication" of the policy itself. Id . at *8. The Court noted that since the Proclamation was generally applicable,