18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 77 (iv) Procedural Issues In ADEA Collective Action Litigation Hutchens, et al. v. Capital One Services, LLC , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2968 (E.D. Va. Jan. 7, 2021). Plaintiffs, a project manager and insurance specialist, filed two individual class and collective actions asserting violations of the statutory requirements of the Older Workers Benefits Protection Act ("OWBPA"), discrimination on the basis of age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), and unpaid overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. When Defendant terminated their employment, Plaintiffs executed severance agreements (the "Severance Agreements"), which contained identical provisions purporting to waive their right to bring a collective or class action (the "Collective Action Waiver"). Id . at *3. Plaintiffs contended that the Collective Action Waiver was invalid and sought a declaratory judgment that they could proceed in a collective action against Defendant. The Court previously had ruled that the Collective Action Waiver in Plaintiffs’ Severance Agreements was "valid and enforceable under federal law." Id . at *4. The Court thereafter granted Plaintiffs’ motion for interlocutory appeal, and the Fourth Circuit subsequently declined to review the petition for declaratory judgment. Plaintiffs then filed renewed motions for certification that asked the Court "to certify a partial final judgment on their claims for declaratory relief’ pursuant to Rule 54(b) to "facilitate an immediate appeal to the Fourth Circuit." Id . at *4-5. Defendant argued that there were “no special or compelling circumstances to justify extraordinary relief under Rule 54(b), particularly when the Fourth Circuit already rejected Plaintiffs’ request to appeal." Id . at *5. The Court ruled that certification would not serve the interest of sound judicial administration, and therefore it denied the motions. First, the Court determined that its previous opinion dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims for a declaratory judgment constituted a "final judgment." Id . at *10. The Court explained that its opinion "finished the litigation on the merits" of the availability of declaratory judgment, and thus was a final judgment under Rule 54(b). Further, the Court determined that certification was inappropriate because the Fourth Circuit already had declined to review Plaintiffs’ first petition. The Court also ruled that the balance of the equities did not weigh in favor of Plaintiffs and no unique circumstances existed to support certifying the case for appeal under Rule 54(b). Id . at *14. Accordingly, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motions. In Re IBM Arbitration Agreement Litigation, Case No. 21-CV-6296 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2021). Plaintiff filed a class action seeking a declaratory judgment that certain portions of an arbitration agreement he signed when employed with Defendant were unenforceable. Id . at 1. Plaintiff specifically sought for the right to litigate claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) after he signed an severance agreement containing an arbitration agreement with a confidentiality provision. After the parties agreed to consolidation, the Court consolidated 24 related actions filed in other districts and set a briefing schedule. The Court also invited the EEOC to submit an amicus brief in support of the position it held as to the arbitration agreement. For these reasons, the Court consolidated the actions pursuant to Rule 42(a)(2). Stouffer, et al. v. Union Railroad Co., LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60238 (W.D. Penn. March 30, 2021). Plaintiff, a former brakeman for Defendant Union Railroad Co., filed a collective action alleging that Defendants improperly terminated employees based on their age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). Plaintiff claimed that Defendants created a “pretextual scheme” in which they forced senior employees to sign “last chance” agreements placing them on probation and subsequently manipulated their disciplinary policies in order to fire more employees over age 40 for cause. Id. at *3. Plaintiff and the putative collective action members were also union members represented by Defendant SMART Transportation Division (“the Union”) and bound by the collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) executed between the Union and Defendants Union Railroad Co., Transtar, and United States Steel Corp. (collectively, the “Non-Labor Defendants”). To that end, Plaintiff further claimed that the Union failed to provide sufficient legal assistance to terminated employees, thereby breaching its duty of fair representation under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). The Union and Non-Labor Defendants filed separate motions to dismiss, and the Court granted the Union’s motion while granting in part the Non-Labor Defendants’ motion. The Union moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s duty of fair representation claim on the grounds that the Court lacked subject- matter jurisdiction because the NLRA expressly excludes Plaintiff’s railway employment from its coverage. The Court agreed. It held that jurisdictional case law established that Plaintiff’s duty of fair representation claim was governed by the Railway Labor Act (“RLA”) rather than the NLRA. The Court also reasoned that, even if it had jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s NLRA claim, Plaintiff did not offer sufficient facts in support of the claim and failed to file it within the six-month statute of limitations prescribed by the RLA. In terms of the Non-Labor Defendants’ motion, these Defendants