18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 605 the Court reasoned that the parties’ Rule 11(c) plea agreement clearly stated that there was to be no restitution in this matter. For these reasons, the Court denied the motion for restitution. United States v. Space Exploration , Case No. Misc. 21-43 (C.D. Cal. June 30, 2021). The U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) initiated an investigation into allegations from a job applicant that Defendant was engaging in discriminatory hiring practices based on citizenship status. The DOJ filed a subpoena seeking the Social Security cards, green cards, and driver’s licenses for 3,500 newly hired employees. Defendant resisted the subpoena and the DOJ filed an administrative action to enforce it. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the subpoena be granted. On Rule 72 review, the Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge found that the DOJ had initiated a legitimate investigation and that the requested materials including company-wide employment eligibility verification documents was not unduly burdensome or vastly more information than it needed to prove or disprove the alleged violations. The Court, after a de novo review of the findings, accepted and approved the recommendation. (xliii) Immigration Class Actions Castellar, et al. v. Mayorkas, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170342 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of individuals who were held in the custody of Defendants Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") and its agencies, alleged that Defendants failed to provide prompt presentment to an immigration judge within 48 hours of arrest in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and the Court granted the motion in part. Plaintiffs sought to certify a class of individuals, other than unaccompanied minors or individuals with administratively final removal orders, who are or will have been in the civil custody of the San Diego offices of Defendants for longer than 48 hours and have not had a hearing before an immigration judge. Id . at *3. The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction under § 1252(e)(1) of the INA to certify the class as to individuals screened for or subject to expedited removal proceedings under § 1225(b)(1) because the statute required that those individuals be held in mandatory detention. Id . at *4. The Court further ruled that pursuant to § 1252(f)(1), the Court did not have jurisdiction to certify the class for injunctive relief. The Court thus amended the class definition to include all individuals in the Southern District of California – other than individuals subject to expedited removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), unaccompanied minors, or individuals with administratively final removal orders – who: (i) are or will have been in the civil custody of the San Diego offices of Defendants for longer than 48 hours; and (ii) had not had a hearing before an immigration judge. Id . at *4-5. The Court found that the revised class met the requirements of Rule 23 for purposes of class certification. The Court determined that Plaintiffs met their burden because they requested relief from Defendants’ alleged a failure to promptly present them to an immigration judge after the initial arrest. For these reasons, the Court granted in part Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Coreas, et al. v. Bounds, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13713 (D. Md. Jan. 26, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") detainees at the Howard County Detention Center ("HCDC"), brought a class action seeking release from detention pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus. A subclass consisting of detainees who were age 50 or older or who had medical conditions that place them at heightened risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19 moved the Court for expedited bail hearings. The Court denied the motion. In light of the recent number of positive tests at HCDC, Plaintiffs subsequently renewed their prior expedited motion for bail hearings. They asserted that, as detainees with high-risk conditions, their continued detention at HCDC subjected them to unconstitutional conditions of confinement necessitating their prompt release. Plaintiffs argued: (i) that Defendants efforts to address the risk of COVID-19 were so inadequate that they have failed to protect Plaintiffs from a known threat to their health and safety; and (ii) that confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic amounted to impermissible punishment because they were civil detainees, not convicted and sentenced criminal prisoners. In order to be released on bail pending resolution of a habeas petition, the Court observed that Plaintiffs were required to show: (i) substantial constitutional claims on which they had a high probability of success; and (ii) exceptional circumstances making a grant of bail necessary for the habeas remedy to be effective. The Court directed an unannounced follow-up inspection of HCDC by the parties ’ agreed-upon expert who had submitted a report on his inspection. Upon consideration of the report, the Court did not find a high probability of success on the claim that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to the health and safety of Plaintiffs and the class members. Plaintiffs based their argument on the recent increase in positive COVID-19 cases, consisting of approximately 30 cases among the detainees, and what they claimed were