18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 557 and Seth Turnbough. Id . Sambrano and Kincannon lived in Texas and were based out of New Jersey and San Francisco, respectively. Id . Turnbough did not live or work in Texas. Id . Defendant also contended that the Court lacked jurisdiction over claims brought by all members of the putative class who worked outside of Texas. The Court noted that it lacked general jurisdiction because Defendant was headquartered in Chicago, Illinois and incorporated in Delaware. The Court also ruled that it had specific personal jurisdiction over the claims of Sambrano and Kincannon, but lacked the same for Turnbough. The Court held that because Sambrano and Kincannon lived in Texas, they were "accommodated" there, and would suffer injury in Texas because of Defendant’s policy being in place in Texas. Id . at *13. In contrast, the Court determined that Turnbough’s claim did not relate to any of Defendant’s Texas contacts at all. Accordingly, the Court opined that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Defendant for Turnbough’s claim. Defendant also moved to dismiss the claims of all out-of-state putative class members for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court concluded that Defendant’s motion was premature since class certification had yet to be granted, and thus as to non-parties, the Court could not dismiss the putative class members’ claims. For these reasons, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Sambrano, et al. v. United Airlines, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224378 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 19, 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). 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. The Court previously had denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction on the basis that Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to show irreparable harm. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration on the grounds that the Court overlooked one theory of alleged harm based on lost bidding opportunities while on unpaid leave. The Court denied the motion. The Court explained that it previously had addressed this argument in denying the motion, when it determined that the testimony “offered by one of Plaintiffs’ experts, Fred Bates, shows how seniority permeates nearly every aspect of an airline employee’s job." Id. at *4. The Court detailed how seniority impacted "flight schedules," "the amount and timing of vacation time- off," "ability to relocate to more desirable terminals," the ability to "choose more desirable jobs," and "myriad other aspects of employment." Id. Id . Accordingly, the Court opined that Plaintiffs’ claim was unfounded. The Court also rejected Plaintiffs attempt to introduce new declarations as evidence in their motion for reconsideration, since they were improperly filed. The Court thus concluded that Plaintiffs failed to show they would suffer irreparable harm from lost bidding opportunities while on unpaid leave. For these reasons, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. Scott, et al. v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33020 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of employees who were laid off by Defendant, filed a class action alleging that Defendant laid them off in violation of the terms prescribed by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”). As a company in the aviation industry, Defendant was eligible to receive governmental funds through the CARES Act, which Congress passed with the intent to “‘reduce the amount of unemployment that would otherwise flow from the impact of COVID-19 on the economy, and to protect vulnerable workers.’” Id. at *3. Shortly after receiving CARES Act funding, Defendant laid off or furloughed hundreds of employees, including Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs subsequently filed their action asserting claims for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), and breach of fiduciary duty. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, while Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court. The Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss and denied Plaintiffs’ motion to remand. Regarding the Court’s jurisdiction, Plaintiffs argued for remand on the basis that Defendant failed to establish that the amount-in-controversy exceeded $5 million, as is required for jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). However, the Court held that Defendant sufficiently support its argument for jurisdiction under the CAFA by offering a calculation of alleged damages based on the putative class size and supporting its calculation with a declaration from its regional human resources director. With respect to the motion to dismiss, Defendant initially contended that Plaintiffs’ claims must fail because the CARES Act does not provide for a private right of action. The Court disagreed. It held that jurisdictional case law recognized that the absence of a private right of action does not necessitate dismissal of