18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

746 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition described the exact anticompetitive conduct necessary to assert a viable claim, i.e. , secret meetings, plant-to- plant communication, and extensive data sharing. The Court further determined that co-conspirators in antitrust cases were "jointly and severally liable for the entire amount of the resulting damages," even if injury did not arise from a single conspirator’s own conduct. Id . at *29. For these reasons, the Court denied Defendants’ motions to dismiss. (lxxxv) Workplace Class Action Arbitration Issues Aleksanian, et al. v. Uber Technologies, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43010 (S.D.N.Y. March 8, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of drivers, brought a class action alleging breach of contract for deducting sales tax and surcharges from drivers’ earnings and for retaining additional earnings under “Upfront Prices” paid by customers. Id . at *2. Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the agreement that Plaintiffs signed as part of their independent contractor agreement with Defendant. Plaintiffs filed a motion for limited discovery for information on interstate and airport trips, contending that this would demonstrate engagement in interstate commerce and thereby exempt them from the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) pursuant to U.S.C. § 1. The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for discovery. It found that the issue could be resolved on the face of the complaint, and further concluded that drivers did not belong to an overall class of workers engaging in interstate commerce, and therefore were not exempt from the arbitration agreement. The Court disagreed with Plaintiffs’ assertion that “connecting passengers to other forms of interstate transportation” placed them into a class engaging in interstate commerce for purposes of the FAA. Id. at *43. The Court further determined that occasional trips by drivers to nearby states did not warrant the classification in the absence of regular interstate travel from overall drivers’ job description. Finding Plaintiffs not exempt from § 1 of the FAA, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs entered into a valid arbitration agreement with Defendant, and thus it granted the motion to compel arbitration. American Institute For Foreign Study, Inc., et al. v. Fernandez-Jimenez, 468 F. Supp. 3d 414 (D. Mass. 2021). Plaintiff, the American Institute for Foreign Study, Inc., doing business as Au Pair in America ("APIA"), filed a motion seeking injunctive relief to compel Defendant Fernandez-Jimenez to arbitrate her claims against Plaintiffs on an individual basis rather than on behalf of herself and a putative class or collective action. Fernandez-Jimenez worked as an au pair in the United States on a J-1 non-immigrant. Fernandez-Jimenez asserted that Plaintiffs subjected her to violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act. After filing an action in state court, Fernandez-Jimenez voluntarily dismissed the action and sought class arbitration of her claims. The AAA submitted a letter to the parties informing them that "the arbitration agreement submitted with the demand . . . prohibits class, collective, or joint actions" and, for that reason, the AAA was unable to administer the matter as a class arbitration. Id . at 418. The Court determined that, in the absence of any affirmative or implicit consent, the arbitration provision was ambiguous as to the availability of class or collective arbitration. Accordingly, the Court ruled that the arbitration provision failed to provide the requisite consent of Defendant to proceed with a class or collective arbitration against Plaintiff. The Court further explained that other case law authorities ha*d held that requiring a party to submit to arbitration in the absence of consent to do so constituted " per se irreparable injury." Id . at 425. The Court also agreed with Plaintiff’s contention that compelling arbitration without proper consent would cause a substantial hardship. Thus, the Court opined that the balance of equities weighed in favor of granting the injunction. Finally, the Court found that a preliminary injunction would serve the public by promoting the strong public policy in favor of enforcing arbitration agreements in accordance with the intent of the parties. For these reasons, the Court entered the requested injunction in Plaintiff’s favor and against Fernandez-Jimenez. Cunningham, et al. v. Lyft, Inc., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 33010 (1st Cir. Nov. 5, 2020). Plaintiffs, a group of drivers, filed a collective and class action alleging that Defendant misclassified drivers as independent contractors and thereby failed to pay them minimum wages and overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA and the Massachusetts Wage Act. The District Court denied Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration on the grounds that Plaintiffs were exempt from arbitration under § 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act because they engaged in interstate transportation. On appeal, the First Circuit reversed and remanded the District Court’s ruling. Plaintiffs contended that since 40% of their rides included driving passengers to and from the airport, drivers were sufficiently engaged in interstate transportation to qualify for the exemption. Further, Plaintiffs asserted that they qualified for the exemption because they sometimes took passengers across state lines. The First Circuit rejected Plaintiffs’ first argument on the basis that drawing a line between the interstate