18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 75 B. Other Federal Rulings Affecting The Defense Of ADEA Collective Actions Numerous federal courts issued rulings in ADEA collective actions in 2021 that implicated § 216(b) certification issues. These rulings included arbitration issues in ADEA collective actions; discovery issues in ADEA collective actions; pay policies in ADEA collective action litigation; procedural issues in ADEA collective action litigation; settlement approval issues in ADEA collective action litigation; and venue issues in ADEA collective action litigation. (i) Arbitration Issues In ADEA Collective Actions Kantz v. AT &T, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52341 (E.D. Penn. March 19, 2021). Plaintiff brought a putative collective action claiming violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). Defendants moved to compel arbitration and stay proceedings on the grounds that a 2012 Management Arbitration Agreement (“MAA”) relegated Plaintiff’s age discrimination employment claims to individual arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). The MAA provided that any claim against Defendants and related entities including those arising out of or related to Plaintiff’s employment or termination of employment be decided by final and binding arbitration instead of court litigation. Plaintiff opposed the motion on various grounds. In particular, she argued that a 2019 General Release and Waiver agreement (“General Release”) between her and Defendants signed at the time of her termination superseded the MAA because the two agreements were on the same subject matter. Further, Plaintiff maintained that because the General Release did not contain a promise to arbitrate disputes, the Court could not compel arbitration. Defendants argued that the General Release did not supersede the MAA because the agreements were not on the same subject matter and because, if the General Release was invalid, then the General Release could not supersede the MAA as a matter of law. The Court denied the motion to compel arbitration. It found that the General Release, which did not include an agreement to arbitrate, superseded the MAA. First, the Court concluded that the MAA and the General Release were on the same subject matter, and because a later agreement superseded an earlier agreement on the same subject matter, the General Release superseded the MAA. The Court further determined that the parties intended the General Release to supersede the MAA as was made clear from the language of the General Release. Moreover, the Court opined that the General Release was not entirely invalid and therefore could supersede the MAA. Neither party had argued that the General Release was entirely invalid. Plaintiff only contended that the General Release was not a valid and enforceable waiver of her rights and claims under the ADEA. Further, the General Release stated that if the Court determined that any part of the General Release and Waiver was not valid, the other parts would still remain valid and enforceable. As such, the Court opined that the validity of the promise that the General Release replaced previous promises concerning the termination of Plaintiff’s employment was not in question and was therefore valid. In so ruling, the Court rejected Defendants’ argument that under the severability principle of federal common law, an arbitrator, not the Court, must decide whether the General Release superseded the MAA. The Court found that Defendants’ severability argument was inapplicable because Plaintiff did not challenge the validity of the agreement to arbitrate. Additionally, the Court pointed out that the parties agreed in the MAA that disputes as to the enforceability, revocability, or validity of the MAA or any portion of the MAA Agreement would be determined only by the Court and not an arbitrator. For these reasons, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. (ii) Discovery Issues In ADEA Collective Actions Kinney, et al. v. International Business Machines Corp. , Case No. 20-CV-969 (W.D. Tex. June 7, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of former employees, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant subjected them to discrimination on the basis of their age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") by engaging in a scheme of rolling layoffs with the goal of replacing older workers with younger employees. Defendant moved to dismiss six Plaintiffs who did not reside in Texas or allege that they worked in Texas. Defendant asserted that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over Defendant with respect to those claims. The Court granted the motion. First, the Court determined that it lacked general jurisdiction over Defendant as it was neither incorporated in Texas, nor did Plaintiffs plead the type of business contacts rendering Defendant “at home” in Texas. Id . at 5. Defendant argued that since the six Plaintiffs did not live and work in Texas prior to their separation from Defendant, their claims did not “arise” out of contacts with Texas, and thus the Court also