18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

556 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition Revenue’s website. Id . at *2-3. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, and the Court granted the motion. The Court determined that: (i) the collecting of sales tax did not fit the definition of "trade or commerce" under the UTPCPL; (ii) that even if the UTPCPL applied, Defendants did not engage in fraudulent, unfair, or deceptive conduct; (iii) Plaintiff failed to demonstrate justifiable reliance, an essential causation element under the UTPCPL; and (iv) because Plaintiff did not sustain an ascertainable loss, he failed to state a claim. Further, because the PFCEUA was "enforced through the remedial provision of the UTPCPL," the Court reasoned that Plaintiffs could not state a viable claim for relief under the PFCEUA if they could not “state a claim for relief under the UTPCPL." Id. at *10. The Court determined that Plaintiffs filed to allege facts that plausibly supported a claim of fraud, as they only alleged they were charged a sales tax and paid the sales tax. As to Plaintiffs’ claim for misappropriate, the Court opined that Plaintiffs failed to allege any facts to plausibly support a claim that the tax was actually appropriated for Defendants’ own use. Finally, the Court ruled that Plaintiffs’ claim for unjust enrichment failed because that collection of the sales taxes was not for profit or revenue but rather for basic compliance with the law. Id . at *11. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Rudolph, et al. v. United Airlines Holdings, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27795 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 12, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of three airline ticket purchasers, filed a class action alleging that Defendants breached their Conditions of Carriage (“COC”) contract by failing to refund airline ticket purchases during the COVID-19 pandemic. Defendants’ COC contained a force majeure clause stating that, if United cancelled a flight due to a condition beyond the airline’s control, ticketed passengers were entitled to a ticket credit, but no refund. Id. at *3. Covered events under the force majeure clause included acts of Gods, hostilities, meteorological or geological conditions, work stoppages, governmental regulations, and fuel shortages. Id. at *3-4. The COC also separately provided for cancellations due to schedule change or irregular operations, both of which required Defendants to provide a credit but no refund. Defendants filed a motion to stay Plaintiff Hansen’s claim pending arbitration, and a motion to dismiss the complaint. The Court denied Defendants’ motion to stay, and granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. Regarding the motion to stay, Defendants contended that Plaintiff Hansen, who purchased his airline ticket through Expedia, was bound to the arbitration agreement contained in Expedia’s Terms of Use. In response, Plaintiff Hansen pointed to the U.S. Department of Transportation regulation stating that “no carrier may impose any contract of carriage provision containing a choice-of-forum clause that attempts to preclude a passenger . . . from bringing a claim against a carrier in any court of competent jurisdiction . . .” Id. at *13. The Court found that this regulation barred airline companies from enforcing arbitration agreements against passengers, and “Defendants should not be permitted to do indirectly what federal regulations prohibit them from doing directly, particularly given the regulation’s purpose to provide protections to consumers.” Id. at *14. With respect to the motion to dismiss, the Court noted that it could not interpret the force majeure clause too broadly, especially since the COC must be construed in Plaintiffs’ favor and an overly broad interpretation would render the schedule change and irregular operations provisions useless. In addressing Plaintiffs’ allegations individually, the Court held that Plaintiff Buffer offered a plausible claim that Defendants’ March 2020 cancellations were motivated by a desire to save on operating expenses in light of the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on air travel. However, the Court dismissed Plaintiff Hansen’s claim because his trip to Costa Rica was cancelled because of Costa Rican border closures, which qualified as a force majeure event. The Court also dismissed Plaintiff Rudolph’s claim since he cancelled his flight before Defendants did, and Plaintiffs did not plead that the COC required Defendants to refund passengers when the passenger cancelled their ticket. Finally, the Court dismissed Defendant United Airline Holdings, Inc. from the lawsuit because it was not a party to the COC. Accordingly, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to stay, and granted in part and denied in part their motion to dismiss. Sambrano, et al. v. United Airlines, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215289 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 8, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of employees, filed a class action against Defendant for issues related to Defendant’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by refusing to engage in an interactive process with workers, by failing to provide reasonable religious accommodations, and by retaliating against Plaintiffs for engaging in a protected activity ( i.e ., requesting an exemption). Id . at *2. Plaintiffs further claimed that Defendant violated the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA") by failing to provide reasonable medical accommodations for qualified employees and for retaliating against those who requested medical exemptions. Id . at *3. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over the claims brought by three named Plaintiffs, including David Sambrano, Genise Kincannon,