18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 265 Ruffing, et al. v. Wipro LTD, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59190 (E.D. Penn. March 29, 2021). Plaintiff filed a collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment Collection Law. Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction the FLSA claims insofar as those claims pertained to employees who worked outside of Pennsylvania. Defendant argued that any claims on behalf of employees who did not work in Pennsylvania should be dismissed because general personal jurisdiction did not exist, as it was not incorporated in the Commonwealth, did not have its principal place of business there, and it did not meet the high bar as an "exceptional case." Id . at *4. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant registered to do business in Pennsylvania and thus consented under Pennsylvania law to the exercise of general personal jurisdiction over all claims against it. The Court granted Defendant’s motion. The Court explained that the U.S. Supreme Court has expressly held that personal jurisdiction is lacking over persons not employed in the forum state, and thus not harmed by the employer in the forum state. The Court further opined that simply because Defendant was registered to do business in the forum state did not subject it to claims of employees who were not employed in the forum state. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendant’s motion as to the out-of-state Plaintiffs. (xxi) Migrant And Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act Class Actions Miguel-Sanchez, et al. v. Mesa Packing, LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84437 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of migrant and seasonal workers, brought a putative class action alleging multiple claims, including wage & hour violations pursuant to the California Labor Code (“CLC”) and violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act ("AWPA"), as well as a claim for civil penalties under California’s Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). The parties reached a settlement, and Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. For purposes of settlement, Plaintiffs requested that the Court certify a class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) consisting of the persons that worked for Defendant, a farm labor contractor, as non-exempt piece-rate workers during the relevant class period. In exchange for release of the claims, Defendant agreed to pay $1,850,000 (“the gross settlement amount”), which included: (i) payments for attorneys’ fees and costs awarded to class counsel (not to exceed $400,000 for fees and $7,500 for costs); (ii) $7,500 in incentive payments to each of the named Plaintiffs, and (iii) settlement benefits to the class members. The net settlement amount after accounting for attorneys’ fees and costs and incentive payments was estimated to be $1,427,500. Additionally, the settlement agreement required Defendant to implement certain employment practices, including providing a full 30-minute duty-free meal period to the workers and rest periods of no less than 10 minutes for every four hours. The Court approved the settlement agreement pursuant to Rule 23(e). First, the Court certified a class of non-exempt piece-rate workers for purposes of settlement. The Court concluded that Plaintiffs satisfied the four requirements under Rule 23(a), including numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. Additionally, the Court found that Plaintiffs had established that questions of law or fact common to class members predominated, as the primary issues in dispute concerned Defendants’ allegedly unlawful wage & hour policies, which generally applied to all class members. While the Court recognized that individual questions existed as to the amount of damages to which each putative class member might be entitled, the Court pointed out that individualized damages inquiries alone did not defeat Rule 23(b)(3) certification. As to superiority, the Court determined that a class action was superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. With respect the fairness of the settlement agreement itself, the Court considered several factors, including: (i) the strength of Plaintiffs’ case; (ii) benefits offered in settlement; (iii) stage of proceedings and settlement negotiations; (iv) adequacy of the class notice and plan for distribution; (v) proposed attorneys’ fee award and preferential treatment; and (vi) adequacy of representation and absence of collusion. After consideration of these factors, the Court found that the proposed settlement was fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable relative to considering the settlement taken as a whole. In sum, the Court the granted Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement and conditionally certified a class for purposes of settlement. Reyes-Trujillo v. Four Start Greenhouse, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5525 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 12, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of migrant workers who came to the United States on H-2A agricultural visas, brought a class action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (“AWPA”), the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA” ) , and Michigan’s Workforce Opportunity Wage Act (“WOWA”). Plaintiffs asserted that Defendants Four Star Greenhouse, Inc. (“Four Star”) and its owner, Thomas Smith (“Smith”), did not compensate them for their work