18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

654 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition could meet the numerosity, commonality, typicality, or adequacy requirements of Rule 23. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s class allegations from the complaint. Byrd, et al. v. McDonald ’ s USA, LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107267 (N.D. Ill. June 8, 2021). Plaintiffs, brothers who owned McDonald’s franchised restaurants, filed a class action alleging that McDonald’s acted in violation of 42 U.S.C § 1981 by pushing Black franchisees to Black neighborhoods with high overhead costs, including higher security, insurance, and employee turnover where White franchisees refused to own and operate restaurants. Id . at *2. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which the Court granted. Plaintiffs operated restaurants in the Nashville and Memphis regions of Tennessee. Plaintiffs contended that McDonald’s dictated uniformity of operational structures and revenue expectations of all franchised restaurants even though it was aware that Black-owned and operated restaurants generated significant lower revenue and were subject to higher operational costs than the national average. Id . at *5. Plaintiffs contended that this bias was discriminatory across the McDonald’s franchise system, and led to Black franchise owners decreasing drastically. Defendants argued that Plaintiffs’ complaint failed allege any specific facts that could support a plausible inference that McDonald’s intended to discriminate against its Black- franchise owners. Id . at *9. The Court noted that Plaintiffs alleged a massive, complex case of discrimination commencing decades ago, extending across the nation, that had impacted hundreds of Black McDonald’s franchisees. Id . at *10. However, the Court explained that the minimum requirements to allege a discrimination case pursuant to Rule 8 include alleging the type of discrimination, who was responsible for the discrimination, and when the discrimination occurred. The Court held that Plaintiffs’ complaint failed to meet that standard. First, the Court noted that there were no allegations regarding who perpetrated any alleged discrimination. Id . at *11. Although the complaint described conduct and statements made by various McDonald’s managers and executives, the complaint failed to connect any conduct by these McDonald’s managers and executives to discrimination experienced by Plaintiffs or any purported class member. Id . at *12. The complaint also did not allege that Plaintiffs or any purported class members were subjected to any of the alleged discriminatory "policies." Id . at *13. The Court explained that vague historical discrimination could not be the basis for a § 1981 discrimination lawsuit filed in 2020. The Court also opined that even if Plaintiffs had stated a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), the statute of limitation applicable to a § 1981 claim depended upon whether the complained of conduct occurred prior to or after the formation of that at-issue contract, and was two years for pre-contract allegations. Id . The Court held that neither Plaintiff specifically alleged that McDonald’s steered him toward their current franchises, and even if they had, the last acquisition by either Plaintiff was 2012, well beyond the two- year statute of limitations. Id . at *15. Accordingly, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Carter, et al. v. Dominion Energy, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58578 (W.D. Va. March 26, 2021). Plaintiffs, two specialty welders, filed a class action alleging that Defendants discriminated against them on the basis of their race, African-American, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court denied. Plaintiffs specifically alleged that they were subjected to racial slurs, terminated, and banned from a plant location following a physical altercation with supervisors. Plaintiffs first count against all Defendants was for common law defamation, alleging that following the altercation, Defendants made statements that Plaintiffs were “banned” from the plant location. Id . at *21. The Court dismissed the claim, finding that Defendants had, in fact, banned them from the location, and therefore the statements were not false and did not equate to defamation. As to Plaintiffs’ discrimination claim, the Court held that Plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts as to the Individual Defendants because they had no supervisory authority. As to the Corporate Defendants, Plaintiffs bought six other claims of racial discrimination, disparate treatment, discrimination in the right to contract, retaliation, and hostile work environment under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The Court noted that the complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to support a claim that Dominion/VEPCO were Plaintiffs’ joint employer because they: (i) did not have the power to hire or fire them; (ii) supervised either of them on a day-to-day basis or had the power to discipline them; or (iii) provided any of the equipment they used. Id . at *29-30. Accordingly, the Court dismissed all claims against Dominion/VEPCO with prejudice. Defendant Frenzelit sought dismissal of the discrimination, disparate treatment, retaliation and hostile work environment claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Court agreed that since Plaintiffs did not name Frenzelit in their administrative charge, they were precluded them from filing a Title VII claim against Frenzelit. Accordingly, the Court largely dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims, leaving only single claims for battery and insulting words against Frenzelit and an Individual Defendant.