18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 79 Defendant filed a motion to transfer venue, arguing that both the traditional convenience factors and a forum selection clause in the early retirement agreements compelled a transfer to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The Court denied the motion. The Court analyzed the convenience factors for each party with respect to the venue location. The Court concluded that Defendant failed to carry its burden to demonstrate that the factors clearly favored transfer to the Northern District of Texas, particularly because the flight attendants lived in areas across the country and the impact of the retirement agreements was felt by each flight attendant in the district in which they lived. The Court thus declined to transfer venue on statutory grounds. As to the forum selection clause, Plaintiffs alleged that the forum selection clause was invalid because it was part of a group of supplemental terms that Defendant attempted to impose without additional consideration upon flight attendants who had already been accepted into Defendant’s retirement agreements, and that to the extent there was any doubt about the validity of the clause, an evidentiary hearing should be held on the matter. Id . at *21-22. Based on the record before it, the Court could not determine whether the forum selection clause was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that Plaintiffs’ complaint included allegations that the inclusion of the clause in the agreement was "the product of fraud or coercion,” and was part of a set of terms that Defendant "demanded" Plaintiffs and other flight attendants agree to despite Plaintiffs already having "accepted" Defendant’s offer of early retirement and despite Plaintiffs receiving no additional consideration for the additional terms. Id. at *23. The Court ruled that it was unclear whether Plaintiffs’ allegations were sufficiently specific to the forum selection clause itself. The Court thus opined that it was unclear whether there was a valid enforcement clause, and transfer of the case to the Northern District of Texas at this stage would be premature. The Court ruled that the evidence before it was unclear and incomplete. The Court held that further proceedings on this issue would be required because there was a genuine question of material fact over whether the forum selection clause controlled. The Court therefore denied Defendant’s motion to transfer venue.