18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

316 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition while the named Plaintiffs’ claims would be typical of some potential class members’ claims, they were not typical of all class members’ claims. Id . at *6-7. The Court also opined that since there was an intra-class conflict, Plaintiffs were not adequate class representatives. Finally, the Court reasoned that because some class members were not injured, the class was not similarly-situated, and therefore class treatment would lead to inconsistent adjudications. For these reasons, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. (ix) Ninth Circuit Condry, et al. v. UnitedHealth Group, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 27839 (9th Cir. Sept. 16, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of female health plan participants, filed a class action alleging that Defendant failed to provide coverage for lactation services as mandated by the Affordable Care Act and thereby violated the ERISA’s notice requirements related to benefit denials. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which the District Court granted in part and denied in part. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court’s ruling granting certification to one of the proposed classes and affirmed the District Court’s decision denying certification to the other class. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant failed to reimburse them for out-of-network lactation services after they had been unable to obtain the services in-network. Plaintiffs further asserted that the denial notices were incomprehensible. Plaintiffs sought certification of two classes, including: (i) a denial letter class; and (ii) a claim reprocessing class. The Ninth Circuit noted that with respect to the first class, the District Court erred by focusing exclusively on the remark codes used in Defendant’s denial letters, and thus applied incorrect legal standard for determining whether Defendant complied with the ERISA’s claims-processing rules. Id . at *9-10. The Ninth Circuit explained that under current precedent, the District Court should have considered the entire course of communication between the plan administrator and the plan participant to determine whether the denial letter provided a sufficiently clear reason for the denial. Id . at *10. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that the analysis would require individualized inquiry to evaluate the sufficiency of the denial letters, and therefore the class failed to meet the typicality requirement. The Ninth Circuit found that the claims reprocessing class claim must be dismissed as moot, but that the District Court properly denied class certification, since Defendant did not take a uniform approach to resolving claims for out-of-network comprehensive lactation services. The Ninth Circuit also opined that Plaintiffs’ claims were not typical of the claims of the class. For these reasons, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the District Court’s ruling. Diaz, et al. v. Westco Chemicals, Inc., Case No. 20-CV-2070 (C.D. Cal. March 9, 2021) . Plaintiffs, a group of participants in Defendant’s Defined Benefit Pension Plan, filed a class action alleging that Defendant breached its fiduciary duties on behalf of Plan participants in violation of the ERISA. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23, and the Court granted the motion. Defendant did not oppose certification. In undertaking an independent analysis of the motion, the Court found that the class met all the Rule 23(a) requirements because: (i) the evidence showed that at least 40 individuals were participants in the Plan; (ii) the legality of Defendant’s practice was a common issue that affected all class members equally; (iii) Plaintiffs’ claims were typical to those of the proposed class members; (iv) Plaintiffs and their counsel were adequate representatives. Id . at 2. The Court also ruled that Plaintiffs’ claims met the requirements of Rule 23(b)(1) because the legal issue was such that in the absence of a class action there would be a risk of inconsistent and conflicting rulings. Further, there was no evidence of a case involving similar claims or that any class members wished to proceed individually. Id . at 3. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. (x) Tenth Circuit Myers, et al. v. Administrative Committee , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186758 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 29, 2021). Plaintiff, a participant in Defendant’s retirement and savings plan, filed a class action alleging breach of fiduciary duty by failing to divest Chesapeake stock in the plan in violation of the ERISA. Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23, which the Court denied. Plaintiff sought to certify a class consisting of all retirement plan participants who were invested in Chesapeake stock. Defendant did not contest that Plaintiff’s proposed class met the numerosity requirement of Rule 23, as there were over 1,000 plan participants who invested in Chesapeake stock. Plaintiff argued that all participants who kept their investments in Chesapeake stock had the same interests and the same remedy based on the same legal theory and the same course of conduct. However, the Court noted that Plaintiff ended her employment in 2015 under a severance program and