18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

610 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition *8. The Court observed that this guidance did not mean that if the participation gap was less than the university’s average women’s team size, the university met prong one and was in compliance with Title IX. The Court found that Plaintiffs offered evidence that UConn manipulated data to be compliant with Title IX when it rostered players on certain teams who did not in actuality play, and made coaches waited to cut players until after the deadline for submitting Title IX data. Further, UConn failed to provide any other reason for the disparities in its athletic participation opportunities. The Court determined that UConn’s historical data suggested that it was not, and had not been in the past, complying with Title IX. The Court noted that the evidence showed that UConn experienced participation gaps disfavoring females every year for the past 13 years. The Court thus concluded that it was substantially likely that UConn was not in compliance with Title IX, and cutting the women’s rowing team would only exacerbate that non-compliance. Id . at *17. The Court determined that Plaintiffs also established that they would likely suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a temporary restraining order, as they would miss the opportunity to compete at the intercollegiate level. Finally, the Court opined that the public interest weighed in favor of granting the temporary restraining order, as it could possibly vindicate Plaintiffs’ civil rights as guaranteed under Title IX. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order. Toomey, et al. v. State Of Arizona , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36944 (D. Ariz. Feb. 26, 2021). Plaintiff, an associate professor at the University of Arizona, received health insurance benefits under a self-funded health plan provided by the State of Arizona. The health plan provided coverage for medically-necessary care but had exclusions for gender reassignment surgery. Plaintiff was transgendered person, and his treating physicians recommended that he receive a hysterectomy as a medically-necessary treatment for his gender dysphoria. Defendants denied coverage to Plaintiff for the surgery under the health plan. Plaintiff thereafter filed a class action against the State of Arizona and the University of Arizona alleging sex discrimination claims under Title VII and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff sought a permanent injunction: (i) barring Defendants from enforcing the exclusion of coverage for gender reassignment surgery from the Plan; and (ii) requiring Defendants to evaluate, on a case by case basis, whether class members’ prescribed surgical care for gender dysphoria was "medically necessary" in accordance with the Plan’s generally applicable standards and procedures. Id . at *16-17. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion be denied. On further review, the Court agreed with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and denied the motion for a permanent injunction. Plaintiff argued that the motion should be granted because: (i) Defendants were unlikely to carry their burden of proof as to his equal protection claim under the heightened scrutiny standard; (ii) that he and the class members would suffer irreparable harm absent the requested injunctive relief; and (iii) that public interest and the balance of equities between the parties weighed in favor of granting injunctive relief. Id . at *6. Defendants argued that “the injunctive relief sought would effectively decide the case because it would provide Plaintiff and the class members with all of the relief they seek and effectively render this action moot.” Id . Further, Defendants argued that the requested injunction would be a mandatory injunction and Plaintiff failed to meet the heightened standard for granting a mandatory injunction. The Court agreed with the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Plaintiff’s burden of proof was heightened because he sought a mandatory injunction, and determined that Plaintiff failed to meet the heightened standard for such relief. The Court further determined that the requested injunctive relief was identical to the ultimate relief Plaintiff and the class members sought, and thus it would be premature to grant such relief prior to discovery and summary judgment briefing. Id . at *14. The Court opined that Plaintiff had not shown that "extreme or very serious damage will result" if the injunctive relief sought was denied, as Plaintiff could potentially pay out-of-pocket for gender reassignment surgery and be reimbursed by Defendants if he prevailed on the merits. Id . at *16. The Court also ruled that case law precedent disfavored granting injunctive relief that would be identical to the relief requested in the complaint absent extraordinary circumstances, which were not present here. For these reasons, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation and denied the motion for a permanent injunction. Wynn, et al. v. Vilsack, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117042 (M.D. Fla. June 23, 2021). Plaintiff, a white farmer, brought an action against the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, the administrator of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”), and head of the Farm Service Agency (“FSA”) in their official capacities challenging § 1005 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (“ARPA”). Section 1005 of the ARPA authorized debt relief of up to 120% of the indebtedness of “socially disadvantaged” farmers and ranchers. Id . at *2. The ARPA defined a “socially disadvantaged group” as a group whose members have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice