18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

528 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition the City was not required to provide Plaintiffs with more process beyond what was provided by enacting the Proclamation. Additionally, the Court held that the City provided more than what was required in providing Plaintiffs advance notice of the vaccination requirement, inviting Plaintiffs to provide additional information for the City’s consideration, offering Plaintiffs the opportunity to participate in hearings, and communicating the results of those hearings along with proposed alternative accommodations. Id . at *10. The Court reasoned that simply disagreeing with the available accommodations was insufficient to challenge the constitutionality of the City’s vaccination requirement. Plaintiffs also asserted that the vaccination requirement had a disparate impact on individuals with sincerely held religious beliefs in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and also asserted a failure to accommodate claim in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act. The Court found that both these claims required administrative exhaustion, which Plaintiffs failed to establish was met. Finally, the Court determined that the City’s vaccination requirement was narrowly tailored, and applied only to a specific job sector whose employees come into regular contact with vulnerable segments of the public and whose employees work in close contact with their peers and other healthcare professionals in other facilities. Id . at *11. Moreover, the Court ruled that the City had a legitimate government interest in preventing the spread of COVID- 19 by adopting the vaccination requirements imposed by the Proclamation, and it was rationally related to that interest because it was based on overwhelming evidence that the vaccines are safe and effective, and increasing vaccination rates among employees who come into regular contact with the public was a rational action to reduce the spread of COVID-19. Id . at *17-18. Finally the Court concluded that Plaintiffs’ generalized statement that their religious freedoms were protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments did not establish irreparable harm. The Court ruled that balancing of harm and equities weighed in favor of Defendants because there was a "legitimate and critical public interest in preventing the spread of COVID-19 by increasing the vaccination rate." Id. at *19. For these reasons, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction. Barkhordar, et al. v. President & Fellows Of Harvard College, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115271 (D. Mass. June 21, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of Harvard university students, filed a class action alleging claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment in connection with Defendants’ move to online education rather than in person instruction without providing tuition refunds in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Following its in-person closure, Harvard gave students the option to continue their Spring 2020 classes remotely or take a leave of absence and receive a partial refund of the semester’s tuition. Plaintiffs attended remotely and alleged that they "entered into identical, binding contracts with Defendant by accepting Defendant’s offer to register for on- campus classes in accordance with the terms of Defendant’s publications and Defendant’s usual and customary practice of providing on-campus courses." Id . at *12. Further, Plaintiffs asserted it was their "reasonable expectation," and the reasonable expectation of Harvard, that Defendants would provide in-person instruction and the use of on-campus facilities as "mutually agreed in accordance with Defendants’ usual and customary practice of providing on-campus courses, and as provided in Defendants’ publications, including but not limited to the policies, procedures, brochures, advertisements, and other promotional materials." Id . Defendants argued that Plaintiffs failed to identify the source of any specific promises, and that the lack of specificity was fatal to both the implied and express contract claims. Defendants further contended that Massachusetts law precluded using custom and practice to alter express contract language. The Court agreed that Plaintiffs had not identified the specific terms that Defendants should have reasonably expected students to understand to be an offer of in- person instruction and access to on-campus facilities. While Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants charged less for online classes, the Court reasoned that they failed to allege that Defendants charged less money for online instruction in degree-granting programs. Id . at *18. Further, even assuming that Defendants could reasonably expect that students would understand from general promotional material that they had contracted for in-person instruction and on-campus access during normal times, Spring 2020 was not a normal time . Id . The Court held Plaintiffs’ complaint did not allege facts suggesting that Defendants would reasonably expect students to understand from their materials that Harvard had promised to provide in-person instruction, when during a global pandemic, the Governor and public health officials dictated otherwise. Id . at *19. Defendants also argued that Plaintiffs were barred from bringing an unjust enrichment claim where the relationship between the parties was governed by contract. Id . at *23. The Court agreed that even if Plaintiffs conferred a benefit on Harvard and Harvard accepted that benefit without providing an on-campus experience, Plaintiffs could not override the existence of the express contract, and the unjust enrichment claim failed. Id . at *24. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss.