18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 691 ruled that Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ retaliation claim. On Plaintiffs’ appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling in part and reversed and remanded in part. The Eighth Circuit concluded that Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that they were subjected to an adverse employment action, i.e ., the reduction of pay when being removed from the truck pending investigations into the complaints of sexual harassment. However, the Eighth Circuit ruled that Plaintiff failed to establish that Defendant’s legitimate, non- discriminatory reasons – protecting the complainant’s safety and responding properly to complaints of sexual harassments – was a pretext for retaliation. The Eighth Circuit determined that the District Court did not err in finding that there was no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether retaliatory intent likely motivated Defendant. After 2015, Defendant changed its pay policy so that complainants received layover pay during time off of the trucks due to a pending investigation. The District Court had ruled that as to the post-2015 class members, Plaintiffs failed to establish that they were subjected to an adverse employment action as they were not subject to the pre-2015 pay policies resulting in reduction of pay. The Eighth Circuit disagreed. It found that since Defendant did not sufficiently communicate the pay policy change, Plaintiffs would not have known that filing a complaint would not subject them to the pre-2015 pay policy. Therefore, the Eighth Circuit concluded that Defendant subjected the post-2015 class members to the same adverse employment action as the pre-2015 class members when it concealed the change to its payment policy. Id . at 696. The Eighth Circuit remanded the District Court’s ruling for it to address in the first instance the question of whether direct or circumstantial evidence could establish that Defendant took an adverse employment action in retaliation for the post-2015 class members’ Title VII-protected activity. Id . Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part the District Court’s ruling. (lxv) RICO Class Actions Albert, et al. v. Global Tel*Link Corp., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188394 (D. Md. Sept. 30, 2021). Plaintiff, an inmate at a correctional facility, filed a class action alleging that Defendants engaged in a price-fixing and kickback scheme to inflate the prices of collect calls placed by inmates from correctional facilities in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), which the Court granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff asserted that Defendants violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by conspiring to: (i) eliminate competition between themselves; (ii) fix and charge inflated prices; and (ii) pay low site commission fees for their single call products. Id . at *3. Plaintiffs also alleged that Defendants violated the RICO by engaging in a widespread pattern of fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions to the contracting governments and to consumers for the purposes of charging excessive rates and paying low site commission fees for single call products. Id . Defendants argued that Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege Sherman Antitrust Act or RICO claims. Specifically, as to the Sherman Act claims, Defendants asserted that: (i) Plaintiffs failed to allege either direct or circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy; (ii) Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege a per se antitrust violation; and (iii) Plaintiffs lacked standing. Id . at *17. Defendants also asserted that: (i) Plaintiffs’ RICO claims based upon alleged misrepresentations and/or omissions made to the contracting governments were too remote to establish proximate causation; (ii) Plaintiffs’ RICO claims based upon alleged misrepresentations and/or omissions made to consumers were deficient because Plaintiffs did not alleged that anyone relied upon the misrepresentations and/or omissions; and (iii) Plaintiffs failed to allege a proper RICO enterprise. Id . at *17-18. As to the Sherman Act claims, the Court explained that in order to establish a § 1 antitrust violation, Plaintiff must prove: (i) “a contract, combination, or conspiracy; (ii) that imposed an unreasonable restraint of trade." Id . at *12. To establish a RICO claim, the Court noted that Plaintiff must allege “(i) conduct [causing injury to business or property] (ii) of an enterprise (iii) through a pattern (iv) of racketeering activity.” Id . at *16. The Court determined that Plaintiff’s claims were sufficient to establish a Sherman Antitrust Act claims, but were not sufficient to establish a RICO claim. The Court found that the Sherman Antitrust Act claims properly alleged the existence of an agreement among Defendants to fix the prices of single call services. The Court thus denied the motion to dismiss the Sherman Antitrust Act claims. The Court agreed with Defendants’ arguments to dismiss Plaintiff’s RICO claim. For these reasons, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Gress, et al. v. SafeSpeed, LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147804 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 6, 2021). Plaintiff filed a class action alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") in connection with a traffic ticket he received from a Red-Light Camera ("RLC") violation when he failed to come to complete stop prior to turning right on red-light. Plaintiff asserted that the RLC that recorded Plaintiff, as well as RLCs "in