18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 531 business consequences that flowed from such closure." Id . at *11. Further, the Court reasoned that the West Virginia law requires contracts to be reviewed under their plain and ordinary meaning. Thus, since there was not “direct” and “physical” loss of the property, and the complaint was devoid of any allegation that there was a damage or alteration to the covered properties or even a threat of damage or alteration, there was no breach of contract presented by Plaintiff’s claim. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Bombin, et al. v. Southwest Airlines, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58862 (E.D. Penn. March 29, 2021). Plaintiffs, two airline passengers, filed a class action alleging that Defendant failed to reimburse them for flights cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, to strike the class action allegations in the complaint, or to transfer venue. The Court denied the motion. After Plaintiff Bombin’s flight was cancelled and Plaintiff Rood’s flight was rescheduled, Defendant offered them a future flight credit, but declined their requests for refunds. Plaintiffs contended that Defendant breach Contract of Carriage by refusing to offer refunds for their flights. Plaintiffs alleged that the contract provisions, read together, provided customers the discretion to select a refund due to a scheduling change. With regard to the motion to transfer venue, the Court held that the record was insufficiently developed to rule on the enforceability of the forum-selection clause contained on Defendant’s website or that Plaintiffs consented to it at all. Based on the record, the Court denied the motion to transfer venue. As for the challenge to standing, the Court ruled that Plaintiffs met the jurisdictional requirements to bring their breach of contract claims. The Court opined that Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that they: (i) suffered an injury because of a breach of contract that; (ii) was caused by Defendant’s conduct; and (iii) their injury was redressable in the form of compensatory damages. The Court also determined that Plaintiffs sufficiently stated a claim because the Contract of Carriage did not unambiguously vest Defendant with discretion to select between a credit and refund when a flight was canceled or otherwise rescheduled. Id . at *14. Therefore, accepting Plaintiffs’ well-pleaded allegations as true, the Court reasoned that they stated a plausible claim for relief. Finally, Defendant moved to strike Plaintiffs’ class allegations for lack of ascertainability. The parties primarily disputed whether the use of "reasonable" in the proposed class definition was sufficiently objective. The Court determined that on the face of the complaint, it would be impossible for Plaintiffs to prove the existence of an ascertainable class. The Court therefore denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss, to transfer venue, and to strike the class allegations. Bridges, et al. v. Houston Methodist Hospital, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110382 (S.D. Tex. June 12, 2021). Plaintiff, a hospital employee, filed a class action alleging that Defendant’s decision was illegal insofar as it fired employees refusing to receive a COVID-19 vaccination. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted. Plaintiff contended that the COVID-19 vaccines were experimental and dangerous, and that she was wrongfully terminated when she refused to receive the vaccination despite Defendant’s requirement that all employees be vaccinated. The Court determined that Texas law protects employees from being terminated for refusing to commit an act carrying criminal penalties to the worker; and therefore, for a claim to survive, Plaintiff must allege: (i) that she was required to commit an illegal act; (ii) that she refused to engage in the illegality, (iii) she was discharged, and (iv) the only reason for the discharge was the refusal to commit an unlawful act. Id . at *4. The Court opined that receiving a COVID-19 vaccination was not an illegal act, and it carried no criminal penalties. Further, the Court noted that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had indicated that employers can require employees be vaccinated against COVID-19 subject to reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities or sincerely held religious beliefs that preclude vaccination. Therefore, the Court granted the motion with regard to Plaintiff’s wrongful termination claims. Plaintiff also requested the Court to declare that the vaccination requirement was invalid because it violated federal law. The Court, however, reasoned that the federal law at issue did not expand or restrict the responsibilities of private employers, and did not apply at all to Defendant as a private employer. The Court concluded that Defendant’s desire to continue its business of saving lives without giving patients the COVID-19 virus was a choice made to keep staff, patients, and their families safer. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Broecker, et al. v. New York City Department Of Education, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226848 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of employees who had not received at least a first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, filed a class action and sought an injunction barring the enforcement of Defendants’ COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate, which required all employees to receive the vaccine for continued employment. The Court denied the motion. Plaintiffs alleged that: (i) the Mandate violated their right to procedural due process under the due