18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

684 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition Developmental Disabilities ("County Boards-Intervenors") and a group of guardians of individuals with disabilities who were not part of the Plaintiff Class ("Guardian-Intervenors"). The Guardian-Intervenors filed a third-party complaint with cross-claims against all Defendants and the County Boards-Intervenors. Thereafter, Plaintiffs, Defendants, and the County Boards-Intervenors settled the matter, and the District Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. The Guardian-Intervenors subsequently withdrew from their agreement to settle. Guardian-Intervenors Caroline Lahrmann and William Lahrmann, parents and guardians of Henry and Elizabeth Lahrmann (the Lahrmanns), filed a pro se notice of appeal from the District Court’s grant of settlement approval. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis that the Lahrmanns, as non-settling parties, lacked standing to challenge the settlement agreement on appeal. The Sixth Circuit agreed that the Lahrmanns did not have standing, as the settlement did not prejudice the Lahrmanns’ interest by interfering with any contractual or contribution rights they may have or eliminate any of their claims. Accordingly, as the Lahrmanns did not have standing to challenge the settlement agreement on appeal, the Sixth Circuit thereby dismissed the appeal. Denson, et al. v. Donald J. Trump For President, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61270 (S.D.N.Y. March 30, 2021). Plaintiff, a former phone bank administrator for Defendant’s Presidential campaign, filed a class action seeking a declaratory judgment that Defendant’s employment agreement was void on the grounds that it violated New York public policy. As a condition of employment, Defendant required Plaintiff to sign the employment agreement, which contained non-disclosure and non-disparagement clauses. After Plaintiff’s work with the campaign was over, she filed a complaint against Defendant in November 2017 asserting claims of sex discrimination, harassment, and slander. Defendant moved to compel the arbitration of Plaintiff’s claims, and after several disputes regarding the enforceability of the employment agreement, the matter was sent to arbitration. The arbitrator initially determined that Plaintiff breached the employment agreement by publishing confidential information about the campaign, but after Plaintiff’s appeal, the New York Appellate Division eventually reversed the decision that confirmed the arbitration award. Plaintiff subsequently brought the present action seeking to invalid the employment agreement. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, while Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. The Court denied Defendant’s motion and granted Plaintiff’s motion. With respect to the motion to dismiss, Defendant argued that Plaintiff lacked Article III standing and that her claims were barred by collateral estoppel. The Court noted that, because Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights were at issue, she only needed to show that she had “‘an actual and well-founded fear that the employment agreement [would] be enforced against her.” Id. at *23. To that end, the Court reasoned that Plaintiff satisfied this burden by pleading that Defendant has engaged in a pattern of enforcing the employment agreement’s non-disclosure and non-disparagement provisions against former campaign employees. Id. As to the collateral estoppel defense, the Court noted that this doctrine “‘precludes a party from relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party.’” Id. at *31. Defendant contended that the New York Appellate Division already had considered the enforceability of the agreement’s non-disclosure and non-disparagement provisions. The Court held, however, that the New York Appellate Division merely stated that such agreements do not “ per se ” violate public policy and that the validity of these agreements is an issue to be determined by the arbitrator. Consequently, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss. In terms of Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, the Court analyzed the employment agreement against certain factors controlling enforceability, such as whether the agreement was reasonable in time and scope, necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate interests, and not unreasonably burdensome to the employee. Id. at *37. The Court pointed out that Defendant’s employment agreement had no time limitation, covered 35 types of vaguely defined “confidential information,” and could reasonably be read to encompass any matter related to the campaign. Id. at *38-39. The Court concluded that the employment agreement was unduly burdensome on employees and could not be enforced in this context. Accordingly, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss and granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment to the extent that the employment agreement’s non-disclosure and non-disparagement provisions were declared invalid as to Plaintiff. Id. at *49. Donahue, et al. v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113028 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of former conductors, filed a class action alleging that they were removed from service under Defendant’s "Fitness-for-Duty program” on the basis of their disabilities and failed to provide reasonable accommodations in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Defendant filed a motion for judgement on the pleadings as to the failure to accommodate claim, and the Court denied the motion. Defendant