18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 415 Defendant pursuant to a lease agreement. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that it was a government contractor exempt from liability under the BIPA. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant was not exempt under the government contractor exemption to the BIPA because it was only a lessee, not a government contractor. Id . at 3. The Court held that the MPEA delegated its obligations and responsibilities to Defendant under the terms of the agreement, and thus obligated Defendant to do work for the MPEA, which was a unit of local government. Accordingly, the Court ruled that under the terms of the lease agreement, Defendant was a government contractor exempt from the BIPA regulations. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Fisher, et al. v. Office Of The Illinois Attorney General, 2021 Ill. App. LEXIS 104 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. March 12, 2021). Plaintiff filed a class action alleging that Defendant failed to produce documents that he had requested pursuant to the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA*”) that were exempt from disclosure. Plaintiff alleged that several clients that submitted claims as part of settlement requested in a FOIA request for production of records relating to the settlement Plaintiff thus sought an order declaring that Defendant violated the FOIA by withholding the requested records, enjoining Defendant from further withholding the records, and granting attorneys’ fees and costs. The trial court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the requested documents were intra-agency materials and thus exempt from disclosure under the FOIA. On appeal, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling. Plaintiff argued on appeal that the trial court erred when it found that the records were exempt under the Act. The Appellate Court found that the trial court correctly determined that the documents were prepared in conjunction with Defendant’s internal considerations and were thus exempt by virtue of the deliberate process exemption. The Appellate Court further ruled that the requested communications are pre-decisional because they were antecedent to Defendant adopting and submitting a final distribution plan to the trial court. For these reasons, the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Fraternal Order Of Police Chicago Lodge No. 7, et al. v. City Of Chicago, Case No. 2021 CH 5376 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Nov. 1, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of police officers and their unions, filed a motion for a temporary restraining order seeking to enjoin the implementation of Defendant’s COVID-19 vaccination policy until the parties could arbitrate the unions’ grievances pursuant to their collective bargaining agreements (“CBAs”). The Court granted in part the motion. Under the vaccination policy, all employees had to be vaccinated by December 31, 2021, unless exempted for religious or medical reasons. Plaintiffs asserted that: (i) Defendant’s unilateral imposition of the policy violated the impasse resolution procedure in their CBAs; (ii) the removal of non-complaint officers would prevent them from performing their duties as peace officers in violation of the CBA and state law; and (iii) the decision to strip non-compliant officers and place them on no-pay status constituted a form of unauthorized discipline in violation of the CBAs. Id . at 4. Defendant argued that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they would be irreparably injured absent an injunction in favor of arbitration. However, the Court reasoned that if all employees complied with the vaccine requirement, then as of the end of the year there would be no grievance to pursuant and there would be no remedy an arbitrator could award. The Court thus ruled that since nothing could take back having received a vaccine, an award after the fact would accomplish nothing, and would constitute an irreparable injury. Defendant also argued that the vaccination policy was a valid exercise of its management rights. However, the Court reasoned that the determination of whether Defendant would succeed on the merits was a question for the arbitrator, as the grievances were rooted in the CBAs. Finally, the Court observed that the dispute at issue involved competing public interests, i.e ., Defendant’s public health objectives and Plaintiffs’ desire to pursue grievances. The Court therefore determined that Defendant would not be unduly burdened if the arbitrations were performed on an expedited basis. For these reasons, the Court stayed compliance with the vaccination requirement until the parties completed their arbitrations. Thus, the Court granted in part Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Kay, et al. v. Frerichs, 2021 Ill. App. LEXIS 277 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. May 28, 2021). Plaintiff, a participant in a state-sponsored college saving plan, filed a putative class action against Defendant, the Treasurer of the State of Illinois, alleging that he was administering the Illinois College Savings Pool in an illegal manner. The trial court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that sovereign immunity barred the claims against him other than injunctive relief. On appeal, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling. Under the Illinois State Treasurer Act, the Treasurer has the authority to establish and administer college