18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 661 enforceable, and therefore it dismissed Plaintiffs’ remaining claims on forum non-conveniens grounds. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ § 14(a) claim under Rule 23.1., and granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss all other claims on forum non-conveniens grounds. Liu, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40120 (N.D. Cal. March 3, 2021). Plaintiff, a driver, filed a class action alleging that Defendant’s in-app rating system allowed drivers to be subjected to racial discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, or in the alternative, for failure to state a claim. The Court granted the motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The Court found that, on its face, the complaint was “too sparse and poorly drafted” to adequately allege racial discrimination or disparate impact. Id . at *2-3. The Court noted that although it could imagine a case where the in-app rating system could be discriminatory, either with Defendant imposing a policy terminating drivers for poor ratings or intentional racial discrimination if the company knew of the implicit bias, the complaint itself failed to contain allegations of specific research or findings actually supporting the assertion that minority drivers were subjected to disparate treatment. The Court reasoned that the complaint could cure these deficiencies if amended, and therefore it granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. Newman, et al. v. Google, 22021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119101 (E.D. Cal. June 25, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of YouTube video creators, filed a class action alleging claims for alleging claims for equitable conversion, replevin, equitable accounting of revenue, breach of contract, implied breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, violation of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act; violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, unlawful, deceptive, and unfair business practices in violation of § 17200 of the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act, violation of Article I, Section 2 of the California Constitution, and violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in connection with Defendants’ restricted video mode for YouTube videos it deemed inappropriate. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted. First, the Court determined that in order to state a § 1981 claim under Ninth Circuit law, Plaintiffs must allege sufficient facts to support an inference that "Defendants intentionally and purposefully discriminated against them." Id . at *18. The Court held that Plaintiffs failed to meet that standard based on Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding Defendants’ moderation decisions. Specifically, Plaintiffs’ only factual allegation in support of an inference that Defendants intentionally and purposefully discriminated against Plaintiffs was Plaintiffs’ belief that Defendants’ moderation decisions were made because of Plaintiffs’ race. Id . The Court also ruled that Defendants’ actions with respect to editorial decisions on YouTube did not meet the Ninth Circuit’s test for a public function, and therefore it did qualify as state action under the First Amendment. As such, Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for violation of the First Amendment. As to Plaintiffs’ Lanham Act claim, the only representation that a user saw when that user tried to view a video unavailable in Restricted Mode was a statement that the video was "unavailable with Restricted Mode enabled." Id . at *28. The Court explained that the Ninth Circuit had previously concluded that this notice did not have a "a tendency to mislead, confuse or deceive" YouTube users. Id . at *29. As such, the Court ruled that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for false advertising under the Lanham Act. Finally, the Court concluded that factors of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity supported dismissal of Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims, as the case was still at the pleading stage and federal judicial resources would be conserved by dismissing the state law claims at this stage. Id . at *39-40. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Ramsay, et al. v. Frontier, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31030 (D. Colo. Feb. 19, 2021). Plaintiffs were two former Frontier passengers who alleged that they were sexually assaulted by other passengers on Frontier flights. Plaintiffs claimed that Frontier was liable for negligently failing to prevent the assaults. Plaintiffs also asserted claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, willful and wanton conduct, and injunctive relief. Defendant moved to dismiss and to strike Plaintiffs’ class action allegations on the grounds that Plaintiffs had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and that Plaintiffs had failed to establish the prerequisites for class certification. The Magistrate Judge recommended that four of the five causes of actions be dismissed, and that the class allegations be dismissed. On Rule 72 review, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. As to all of Plaintiffs’ claims, the Court determined that Plaintiffs failed to establish the existence of duty in this case. The Court opined that there was nothing in the complaint to suggest that Defendant should have foreseen sexual assaults being a problem under the circumstances of this case, that sexual assaults were common on Defendant’s flights, that these particular