18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

616 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition employers of union members in violation of the ERISA and the Labor-Management Relations Reporting and Disclosure Act. Id . at *2. The parties entered into a consent decree, which the Court approved. Thereafter, Unite All Workers for Democracy and Scott Houldieson (together “Intervenors”) moved to intervene in the action. The Intervenors stated that they wished to "protect their interest in bringing democratic governance to the union” and that intervention was necessary to “identify key weaknesses” in the consent decree. Id . at *7. Plaintiff and Defendant opposed the motion, arguing that it was untimely. The Court agreed, and it denied the Intervenors’ motion. The Court held that the motion is untimely because it was submitted more than two months after the original joint motion for entry of a consent decree was filed; more than six weeks after counsel for the Intervenors appeared in the case, and after the second motion for entry of a consent decree was presented, which clearly spelled out the terms of the proposed decree; and more than three weeks after the matter was closed by issuance of the consent decree. Id . at *3. The Court concluded that the Intervenors failed to identify a tangible legal interest, and any generalized interest in "fair elections" and "union integrity" would be provided by the U.S. Government given its status as Plaintiff in the case. Id . The Court explained that the Intervenors could voice interest in the Court’s actions to enforce the consent decree by seeking to file a brief as amicus curiae when a party filed a motion for enforcement or sought approval under the consent decree. For these reasons, the Court denied the motion to intervene. Victim Rights Law Center, et al. v. Rosenfelt, 988 F.3d 556 (1st Cir. 2021). Plaintiffs filed a class action challenging the U.S. Department of Education’s recent promulgation of a regulation setting the standard for actionable sexual harassment for administrative enforcement of Title IX. Id . at 558. The District Court previously had denied both intervention as of right and permissive intervention to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, the Independent Women’s Law Center, and Speech First, Inc. (“Foundation”). On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling denying intervention. The Foundation moved to intervene for the purpose of arguing that the First Amendment requires a standard for actionable "sexual harassment" that is at least as narrow as the definition provided in the new regulation and that the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause mandated these additional procedural protections. Id . at 559. The District Court had ruled that the Foundation failed to show that the government would not adequately protect their rights. Defendants opposed the relief sought by Plaintiffs and challenged Plaintiffs’ standing by asserting various Administrative Procedures Act defenses as to each claim, and arguing that there was no equal protection violation. The Foundation contended that the District Court abused its discretion by denying their motion to intervene as of right on the ground that the government would adequately represent their interests and by failing to adequately explain its denial of permissive intervention, thereby preventing the First Circuit from conducting a meaningful appellate review. The First Circuit determined that the Foundation’s argument that proposition that the government’s avoidance of constitutional issues rendered inadequate its representation of their interest in having those issues addressed was inconsistent with the principle of constitutional avoidance. Id . at 563. The First Circuit ruled that the Foundation failed to make the necessary showing for intervene as a matter of right because an intervenor’s interest in making an additional constitutional argument in defense of government action did not render the government’s representation inadequate. The First Circuit reasoned that District Courts are obliged to avoid rulings on constitutional questions when non-constitutional grounds will suffice to resolve an issue. The First Circuit opined that the reasoning of the District Court was sufficient to sustain its order as to permissive intervention. Accordingly, the First Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling denying the motion to intervene. (xlix) Issues With The Judicial Panel On Multi-District Litigation In Class Actions In Re All-Clad Metalcrafters, LLC, 22021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70267 (J.P.M.L. April 12, 2021). Plaintiffs filed four class actions in different judicial districts alleging that Defendant’s multi-ply stainless steel cookware was marketed as dishwasher-safe, but deteriorated at a much quicker rate if actually put in a dishwasher. Defendants moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize the litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania or, alternatively, in the Northern District of California. The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (“the Panel”) granted the motion to transfer to the Western District of Pennsylvania. The Panel determined that this district would best serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Id . at *1. The Panel held that all actions involved common factual issues, they were all in the very beginning stages of litigation, and all alleged state law claims. The Panel reasoned that centralization would eliminate duplicative discovery; avoid inconsistent pretrial rulings; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Id . at *2. Plaintiffs contended that centralization was not