18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

716 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition One Fair Wage, Inc., et al. v. Darden Restaurants, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174736 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2021). Plaintiffs an advocacy organization focused on eliminating the sub-minimum cash wage, filed a class action against Defendant seeking redress for the harm caused to OFW as an organization in connection with Defendant’s cash wage and tipping policies, which allegedly resulted in increased sexual harassment and disparate wages for workers across racial groups and that these sex and race-based effects violated the prohibitions on workplace discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights act of 1964 ("Title VII"). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of standing pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff specifically sought declaratory relief that Defendant’s policies were unlawful under Title VII, a nationwide injunction prohibiting it from maintaining the policies and any other unlawful employment practices, equitable monetary relief redressing the resources that Plaintiff used and the harm that it suffered as a result of the policies, and an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees. Id . at *9-10. First, the Court held that Plaintiff made a prima facie showing that Defendant was subject to the Court’s specific personal jurisdiction under California’s long-arm statute and thus denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Id . at *26. However, the Court found that Plaintiff cited no case law establishing that a non-employee, such as an advocacy organization, had standing to challenge an employment practice, particularly where the alleged injury it contended rendered it "aggrieved" was either purely ideological or entirely derivative of the injury directly suffered by actual employees. Id . at *47-48. The Court reasoned that should it accept Plaintiff’s theory, it would circumvent class certification pursuant to Rule 23 and its requirements, and ignore the protection afforded to the class via Rule 23’s requirements of notice, objection rights, and judicial scrutiny of any class settlement. Id . at *48. The Court noted that given the importance applied to the case at hand, there could be employees who objected to the changes sought by Plaintiff to eliminate certain tipping practices. The Court explained that under Plaintiff’s proposed procedure, any advocacy organization could sidestep Rule 23 and sue for class-wide relief. Id . at *49. The Court therefore granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim with prejudice. Primus Group, LLC, et al. v. Smith & Wesson Corp. , 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 3388 (6th Cir. Feb. 8, 2021). Plaintiff, an entertainment venue, filed a class action against Defendants, a group of eight different firearm manufacturers, alleging that they violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") by misrepresenting the purpose of the firearms. The District Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling. Plaintiff contended that Defendants conduct led to killing and wounding of innocent people which endangered the "health, welfare, safety and lives of all people living in the United States" and that "gun violence" posed an "imminent" and "inevitable" "threat of irreparable harm to American society.” Id . at *6. Plaintiff therefore sought to represent all those living in the United States in order to allow peaceful and safe assembly in public spaces without threat of gun violence. The Sixth Circuit ruled that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to allege an particularized injury, as it supplied no facts that Plaintiff was personally or individually affected by Defendants’ conduct in any way. The Sixth Circuit also held that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it was "among those injured" by mass shootings, or that gun violence affected it "in a personal and individual way.” Id . at *7. The Sixth Circuit ruled that by failing to allege a particular harm, Plaintiff failed to meet its burden at the pleading stage to demonstrate an injury-in-fact sufficient to confer standing. For these reasons, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (lxxii) Statute Of Limitations Issues In Class Actions Medley, et al. v. Atlantic Exposition Services, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138584 (D.N.J. July 26, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of warehouse workers, filed a complaint against Defendants, their employer, Atlantic Exposition Services, Inc. (“Atlantic”), and the Union to which they belonged. The terms governing Plaintiffs’ employment, wages, benefits, and the process by which they should pursue any grievances, was governed by a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”). Plaintiffs maintained, among other things, that: (i) Atlantic had not made health insurance, pension, retirement benefits, or vacation benefits available to them; and (ii) their pay for overtime was either miscalculated or withheld. Plaintiffs, who were all minorities, alleged that unlike them, the one white warehouse employee had received the full benefit of his hours toward Pension and Annuity benefits. Concerned about these issues, Plaintiffs wrote a letter on September 5, 2018 to Atlantic, the Union, and the Pension Fund. Subsequently, Plaintiffs attempted to attend Union meetings in 2019 and were not allowed to do so. Thereafter, Plaintiffs retained counsel to deal with the matter. After Plaintiffs were terminated, they filed a complaint on September 14, 2020. Plaintiffs’ complaint asserted: (i) a series of hybrid claims under § 301 of the