18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

718 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition reliance required to assert equitable estoppel in New York. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Snyder-Hill, et al. v. The Ohio State University, Case No. 18-CV-736 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 22, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of students who were sexually abused, filed a class action alleging claims for hostile environment/heightened risk, deliberate indifference to prior sexual harassment, and deliberate indifference to report sexual harassment based on sexual abuse they suffered by Dr. Strauss while they were students at the university. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted. Defendant argued that Plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiff argued that the Court should not dismiss a claim on a statute of limitations defense via a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. The Court, however, explained that statute of limitations defenses may be properly raised in a motion to dismiss. The Court opined that dismissal was appropriate when the complaint shows conclusively on its face that the action was indeed time-barred. The Court found that in reviewing the second amended complaint, it was clear that Plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the statute of limitations. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Southern Furniture Leasing, Inc., et al. v. YRC, Inc., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 6160 (10th Cir. March 3, 2021). Plaintiff filed a class action alleging that Defendants, a group of less-than-truckload freight carriers, systemically overcharged their customers by using inflated shipment weights when determining shipping prices. Id. at *1. Plaintiff claimed that, starting in 2005, Defendants implemented a policy by which they eliminated negative reweigh corrections, i.e. , correcting estimated shipping weights that weighed less than the customer’s estimate. Id. at *2-3. Plaintiff’s complaint asserted various causes of action, including: (i) breach of contract; (ii) breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; (iii) unjust enrichment; and (iv) and violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that Plaintiff filed after its 180- day window to contest the alleged overcharges under 49 U.S.C. § 13710(a)(3)(B). The District Court granted the motion. Plaintiff appealed, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order. On appeal, Defendants argued for dismissal by pointing to the statute of limitations issue and by contending that Plaintiff lacked Article III standing to bring its claims. With regard to the standing issue, Defendants asserted that Plaintiff’s complaint was so vague that it failed to allege an injury-in-fact, but the Tenth Circuit disagreed. It referenced the low pleading standard at the motion to dismiss stage and concluded that Plaintiff’s complaint was sufficient by claiming that, due to Defendants’ conduct, it paid more for shipments than it should have. Id. at *6. In terms of the statute of limitations issue, Plaintiff offered three reasons why its complaint was not subject to § 13710(a)(3)’s time limit, including: (i) § 13710(a)(3) only applied to disputes before the Surface Transportation Board (“STB”); (ii) Plaintiff was not a “shipper;” and (iii) Plaintiff’s complaint did not present a billing dispute. Id. at *8. The Tenth Circuit concluded that nothing in the plain language of the statute suggested that a shipper’s right to contest charges was limited to filings before the STB, as shippers can contest charges before courts or the STB. The Tenth Circuit also noted that Congress could have easily limited § 13710(a)(3)’s applicability to only the STB if it had intended to do so. Id. at *11. The Tenth Circuit further reasoned that Plaintiff must constitute a “shipper” under the statute because a “‘shipper’ is ‘someone who contracts with a carrier for the transportation of cargo,’” and here, Plaintiff contracted with Defendants to transport goods. Id. at *15. Furthermore, the Tenth Circuit held that Plaintiff’s complaint plainly presented a billing dispute by challenging Defendants’ shipping charges. Therefore, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Tilley, et al. v. Shelton , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171319 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of former employees, filed a class action alleging mistreatment and an ensuing breach of the duty of fair representation by Defendant, Local 1101 of the Communications Workers of America (the "Union"). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the claims are time-barred. The Court granted Defendants’ motion. Plaintiffs previously had worked at Verizon and were represented by the Union for collective bargaining purposes. Plaintiffs reported to Defendant Peters, who fired them in 2015, allegedly for job abandonment and/or for mistreating a customer. Following their termination, Plaintiffs filed grievances with the Union, which declined to take the grievances to the employer. Plaintiff Tilley also filed an internal complaint with Verizon’s Equal Employment Opportunity office ("Verizon EEO"), which allegedly found Tilley’s complaint well founded and told Tilley that it recommended to the Union that she be reinstated. Tilley alleged that she contacted the Union, did not receive a response, and neither Plaintiff was reinstated. Plaintiffs took no action for five years, until the