18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

646 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition affiliate of Navient, a Sallie Mae affiliate. The Court determined that by the express language contained in the note as number five in the list of possible parties, Defendant was able to compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s claims. The Court further opined that even without such express language, Defendant would still be entitled to compel arbitration as Navient’s agent tasked with collecting Plaintiff’s debt. Id . at *6. The Court also held that Plaintiff’s FDCPA claim was within the scope of claims covered by the note’s broad arbitration provision. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Williams, et al. v. Dearborn Motors 1, LLC, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 26350 (6th Cir. Aug. 30, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of former car dealership employees, filed a class action alleging Defendant subjected Plaintiffs to retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act when it fired them as a result of refusing to sign an arbitration agreement. Plaintiffs advanced class claims on behalf of all employees required to sign arbitration agreements as a condition of their employment. Plaintiffs also brought individual discrimination claims on the basis of race in violation of Title VII, due to age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), and on account of disability on the basis of the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Defendant moved to dismiss the class claims and compel arbitration of Plaintiff Howard’s individual claims. The District Court granted the motion after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis , 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018), upholding an arbitration agreement with a class waiver policy in an action asserting wage and overtime claims under the FLSA. Relying on Epic , the District Court ruled that the class waiver in this action case was valid and enforceable. It therefore dismissed the class claims, and ordered that Howard’s remaining claims be sent to arbitration. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling. Plaintiffs asserted that dismissal of their class-based discrimination claims was improper because Defendant’s class waiver policy was unlawful under Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA because the policy limited their right to pursue certain claims or obtain certain types of relief. Id . at *6. Plaintiffs also argued that Plaintiff Williams presented a prima facie case of retaliation on the theory that his opposition to the mandatory arbitration agreement constituted protected activity because he reasonably believed he was opposing a discriminatory policy. Id . The Sixth Circuit rejected both arguments. It opined that Plaintiffs failed to state a cognizable claim to relief with respect to their class-based discrimination claims, since the claims were precluded by the Federal Arbitration Act’s ("FAA") broad mandate in favor of upholding arbitration agreements. Id . at *7. The Sixth Circuit further explained that the Supreme Court had directly addressed the issue by upholding a class action waiver in the context of an employment discrimination claim raised under the ADEA, despite the fact that the statute expressly permits collective actions. Id . at *8. The Sixth Circuit also determined that Plaintiffs’ claims failed because they had not shown that the class waiver actually violated any of the discrimination statutes. The Sixth Circuit reasoned that Williams’s refusal to sign did not qualify as a protest of any actual or suspected discriminatory policy, and was thereby not a protected activity in opposition to a discriminatory employment act or practice, which was required to establish a prima facie case for retaliation under Title VII, the ADA, or the ADEA. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Williams, et al. v. Planet Fitness, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57596 (N.D. Ill. March 26, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of gym members, filed a class action alleging violation of state laws in connection with Defendant’s denial to reimburse gym membership fees while the gym was closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration and dismiss Plaintiff Williams’ claims for improper venue pursuant Rule 12(b)(3). The Court granted the motion. Plaintiffs asserted that Defendants’ conduct caused them injury in the form of out- of-pocket losses due to their inability to access the fitness centers for which they paid access fees. Id . at *5. Plaintiffs asserted nine separate causes of action, including violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Illinois Physical Fitness Services Act, and the Idaho Consumer Protection Act, as well as for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion, and for a declaratory judgment. Defendant contended that the membership contract Plaintiffs signed contained a valid arbitration agreement that required binding arbitration of the claims. Plaintiffs argued that the arbitration provision was procedurally unconscionable because it was not sufficiently conspicuous and "buried [it] in fine print at the bottom of the membership contract," and nothing on the front page or beginning of the agreement alerted him to the fact that it contains an agreement to arbitrate elsewhere. Id . at *9. The Court rejected Plaintiffs’ argument. It found that the agreement was in the same font size as the rest of the document and was clearly labeled as "Dispute Resolution." Id . Plaintiffs also contended that the arbitration provision was substantively unconscionable because it referenced, but failed to explain, the rules of the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”). Id . at *11.