18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

714 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition Court granted Defendant’s motion as to Plaintiffs’ claim for equitable restitution and denied the motion as to Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief. Hodgkins, et al. v. Frontier Airlines, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130888 (D. Colo. July 14, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of flight attendants who breastfed their children, filed a class action alleging that Defendant’s policies and procedures were discriminatory to women in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) when they were allegedly denied accommodations as nursing mothers or paid time off for pregnancy-related complications. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of standing, which the Court denied. Defendant argued that Plaintiffs failed prove their standing since none of them were currently pregnant or breastfeeding and none of them asserted an imminent intent to become pregnant. Plaintiffs argued that they had standing because the harms they suffered were capable of repetition, yet evading review. The Court found that as current employees, it was reasonable to expect that Plaintiffs or other proposed class members would be subject to the same policies impacting their ability to take time off for pregnancy-related medical care or obtain breastfeeding accommodations. The Court opined that Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that they were exposed to wrongful conduct insofar as they would be subjected to Defendant’s policies in the future. Therefore, the Court reasoned that the injury-in-fact was the ongoing threat of being denied pregnancy-related accommodations thereby causing Plaintiffs to modify their family planning decisions. Id . at *22. Further, the Court opined that there was a reasonable expectation that one of the approximately 1,150 female flight attendants employed by Defendant would become pregnant in the future and be subject to the same alleged discriminatory conduct. Id . at *23. Thus, the Court determined that Defendant’s alleged failure to provide accommodations for pregnant and breastfeeding flight attendants was a concrete injury affecting each of them in a personal and particularized manner to confer standing. Id . In Re Coca-Cola Products Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 26239 (9th Cir. Aug. 31, 2021). Plaintiffs in this multi-district consumer class action alleged that Defendant misled consumers about its products by including the language “no artificial flavors, no preservatives added, since 1886” despite its use of phosphoric acid, which is chemical preservative or an artificial flavor. Id . at *2. The District Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss on the basis that Plaintiffs lacked Article III standing. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling. The Ninth Circuit explained that Plaintiffs did not alleged a desire to purchase Coke, nor had they alleged any other concrete, imminent injury. Plaintiffs Engurasoff and Dube did not testify that they would have a desire to purchase Coke in the future, and thereby they lacked standing to pursue injunctive relief. Additionally, four other Plaintiffs submitted declarations averring that they "would consider purchasing" Coke depending on several factors, which the Ninth Circuit found was insufficient to show an actual or imminent threat of future harm. Id . at *4-5. Finally, Plaintiffs Woods and Marino testified that they were not concerned with phosphoric acid, but rather with whether Coca-Cola was telling the truth on its product’s labels. Id . at *5. The Ninth Circuit opined that the desire for Coca-Cola to truthfully label its products, without more, was insufficient to demonstrate that Plaintiffs had suffered any particularized adverse effects. For these reasons, the Ninth Circuit concluded that Plaintiffs failed to adequately alleged an injury-in-fact sufficient to confer standing. The Ninth Circuit therefore affirmed the District Court’s ruling granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss. In Re Valsartan, Losartan, And Irbesartan Products Liability Litigation, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1006 (D.N.J. Jan. 12, 2021). In this multi-district litigation (“MDL”), Plaintiffs, a group of consumers and Third-Party Payors who purchased or made reimbursements for valsartan-containing drugs “VCDs,” brought an economic and medical monitoring class action after the VCDs were found to be contaminated with probable human carcinogens. Defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) on the basis that Plaintiffs lacked Article III standing. Specifically, Defendants argued that because a class representative only had standing to sue under the laws of the state where he or she resided, and the class representatives had asserted claims under laws of states where they did not reside, these claims should be dismissed. Plaintiffs maintained that they could properly bring claims on behalf of state putative class members because only the class representatives needed to have standing. Further, Plaintiffs contended that Defendants were improperly injecting class certification issues into the standing-inquiry states, and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. The Court determined that Plaintiffs had not met their burden to establish standing, and therefore it granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The Court reasoned that Plaintiffs asserted state-specific claims under the laws of all 50 states, and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Yet, the named Plaintiffs, collectively, represented only 21 states. Because the