18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 597 First Amended Complaint on forum non-conveniens or international comity grounds, PubMatic agrees to submit to jurisdiction in the courts of England and Wales for the purposes of Count 1 of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint." Id . at *4. The Court explained that before dismissing an action based on forum non-conveniens, it must analyze whether an adequate alternative forum exists, and whether the balance of private and public interest factors favors dismissal. Id . at *5. The Court concluded that there was an alternate forum and Defendant was amenable to process in the U.K. if the Court dismissed the case on forum non-conveniens or international comity grounds. Further, both parties agreed that the U.K. would serve as an adequate alternative forum. Even though Plaintiff’s choice of forum is typically entitled to substantial deference, the Court noted that the choice of Elliott, as a foreign Plaintiff, deserved less deference. Id . at *7. Cutting further against the deference usually owed to a Plaintiff’s choice of forum, the Court observed that Elliott sought to represent a putative class comprised solely of foreign putative class members. With the adequacy of an alternative forum established and the weight of Plaintiff’s forum selection diminished, the Court determined that the analysis should focus on the balancing of both private interest and public interest factors. The Court reasoned that the private interest factors were mainly neutral and did not weigh heavily in favor of either party. However, with regard to the public interest factors, weight was heavily in favor of the U.K. as the appropriate forum. Therefore, the Court ruled that together, the private interest factors and the public interest factors weighed in favor of dismissal on forum non- conveniens grounds. Id . at *8-9. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the action. (xlii) Government Enforcement Litigation Alvarez, et al. v. School Board Of Miami-Dade County, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 20695 (11th Cir. July 13, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of teachers employed by the Miami-Dade County School Board ("the School Board"), filed a class action alleging violation of due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs asserted that Florida’s law reforming how teachers were compensated required School Boards to adopt a "grandfathered" salary schedule for teachers hired before the new compensation scheme became effective on July 1, 2014. Id . at *2. The School Board adopted a salary schedule in 2013, but then adopted another in November 2014 as the grandfathered salary schedule for purposes of the Florida statute. Plaintiffs argued that the November 2014 salary schedule could not be the "grandfathered" schedule because it came after July 1, 2014, and that the 2013 schedule should still govern their compensation. Id . at *4. Defendant brought a motion to dismiss, which the District Court granted. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed that District Court’s order. Plaintiffs argued that the School Board’s adoption of a less remunerative salary schedule after the statutory deadline violated a state-created property right to the compensation provided for in the pre- July 1, 2014, schedule. The parties agreed that the School Board’s adoption of salary schedules constituted a legislative act, but the District Court found that the School Board had a rational basis for implementing the November, 2014, salary schedule as the "grandfathered" schedule, i.e. , engaging in collective bargaining with the teachers’ union. The District Court therefore determined that there was no federal constitutional violation. Id . at *10. The Eleventh Circuit agreed that the School Board’s action were not in violation of the law. Plaintiffs further argued that School Board’s failure to use the 2013 schedule as the grandfathered salary schedule violated the fundamental right to contract because the School Board departed from the terms of the collectively bargained 2013 salary schedule and because it violated the individual teachers’ right to a contract that compensated them according to that schedule. Id . The Eleventh Circuit reasoned that the School Board did not prevent Plaintiffs from contracting, nor did it prevent the union from collectively bargaining on the teachers’ behalf. Finally, Plaintiffs asserted that the School Board violated their procedural due process rights when it adopted the post-July 1, 2014, salary schedule through a process that was "irregular" and "defective." Id . at *11. The Eleventh Circuit opined that Plaintiffs failed to explain how the process was somehow exempt from the rule that legislative process was all the process that is due when property was deprived legislatively. Id . at *12. The Eleventh Circuit explained that there was an indication that the School Board used a different process when it adopted the November 2014 schedule than it did for any other schedule. The Eleventh Circuit held that even if the School Board ran afoul of Florida state statutes, Plaintiffs failed to point to any authority that showed that this would amount to a violation of procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Id . For these reasons, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling. American Society Of Journalists And Authors, et al. v. Bonta, 15 F.4th 954 (9th Cir. 2021). Plaintiffs, associations of journalists, authors and photographers, brought suit challenging § 2778 of the California Labor Code. California’s Assembly Bill 5 and its subsequent amendment of § 2778 codified the more expansive ABC