18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 555 on the grounds that they were subject to Eleventh Amendment immunity. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Wolf issued an executive order "regarding the closure of all businesses that are not life sustaining." Id . at *3. Governor Wolf subsequently issued a press release explaining that non-life sustaining business could seek a waiver of the business closure order, which would be reviewed by a team of professionals. Id . Over 42,000 non-life sustaining businesses applied for waivers and almost 7,000 were granted. Id . Plaintiffs brought substantive due process and equal protection claims against Defendants, asserting that the waiver program granted waivers to businesses similar to their businesses, but Defendants denied waivers to their companies. The Court held that the claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity and the mootness doctrine. The Court determined that since there was no ongoing conduct by Defendants to be enjoined, any dispute that might have existed between the parties no longer presented a live case or controversy. The Court opined that Plaintiffs were requesting prospective declaratory and injunctive relief to conform Defendants’ future conduct to federal law, but for the applicable exception to exempt Defendants from immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, Plaintiffs must also allege "an ongoing violation of federal law." Id . at *10. The Court ruled that there was no ongoing conduct by Defendants that violated federal law, as the waiver program was no longer in place and Defendants certified that it would not return. The Court reasoned that in the event that a similar shutdown would again be needed, Defendants certified that a new program would be developed and implemented. Id . at *11. Accordingly, the Court held that Defendants had Eleventh Amendment immunity, and the Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Defendants also argued that Plaintiffs’ claims were moot. The Court held that for an exception to mootness to apply, there must be more than a "theoretical possibility" of Defendants implementing the program again, and Plaintiffs must be a "demonstrated probability." Id. at *12. The Court found that there was no "demonstrated probability" or even a "reasonable expectation" that Defendants would implement the same waiver program. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. R.V., et al. v. Mnuchin, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213597 (D. Md. Nov. 4, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of minor children with parents who were undocumented, filed a class action alleging that their parents were ineligible for the economic impact payments provided for by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security ("CARES") Act because they did not have social security numbers (“SSN”), which was a prerequisite for payments under the statute. Plaintiffs asserted that the SSN requirement of the CARES Act violated their implied right to equal protection under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Id . at *3. Plaintiffs further alleged that Defendants, the United States of America and former Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin, subjected them to disparate treatment based on their parents’ immigration status as compared to American citizen-children with two American citizen-parents. Id . Defendants argued that the challenged provision of the CARES Act was a permissible exercise of Congressional authority to legislate regarding immigration and naturalization. Id . at *3. Defendants also contended that because the challenged provision of the CARES Act conferred benefits directly on taxpayers, and not on taxpayers’ children, Plaintiffs lacked Article III standing. The Court determined that the disparate treatment that Plaintiffs alleged constituted an injury-in-fact for Article III standing purpose because unequal treatment of children of undocumented immigrants due to their parents’ alienage was injurious in and of itself. However, the Court concluded that § 6428 did not violate Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment right to equal protection, and that the statute falls well within the expansive authority of Congress to legislate regarding immigration and naturalization. Plaintiffs claimed that "because there is no earned income requirement in § 6428, limiting the assistance to those with work authorization cannot rationally be expected to remove an incentive for unauthorized work." Id . at *20. The Court opined that disincentives to unauthorized work was not the only legitimate interest that may be advanced by the SSN requirement. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Ranalli, et al. v. Etsy.com, LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214243 (W.D. Penn. Nov. 8, 2021). Plaintiffs filed a class action alleging claims under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (“UTPCPL”), the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act (“PFCEUA”), and common law claims of unjust enrichment, fraud, and misappropriation in connection with Defendants’ collection of state sales tax on sales of face masks for COVID-19 prevention sold on Defendants’ online marketplace. Plaintiff alleged that face masks were exempt from Pennsylvania sales tax as of March 6, 2020, and that Defendants knew or should have known that, during the state of emergency related to the pandemic, "medical supplies" such as face masks or covering were non-taxable based on publicly available information on the Pennsylvania Department of