18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 565 proceedings, without effect to Italian choice-of-law principles.” Id . at *2. The District Court had found that Plaintiffs’ claims fell within the scope of the forum selection clause; that the forum selection clause was enforceable, it did not contravene public policy, and was not fundamentally unfair; and that the forum non- conveniens factors as modified by the forum selection clause favored dismissal. Id . at *5. Plaintiffs argued that the clause was unenforceable, and therefore the District Court erred by engaging in the forum non-conveniens analysis. The Eleventh Circuit rejected Plaintiffs’ argument on convenience factors, as Plaintiffs failed to establish any evidence that they would have to travel to Italy in order to pursue the case. The Eleventh Circuit noted that Defendant produced an affidavit from an Italian attorney explaining that Plaintiffs would not be required to attend routine proceedings in person and that even for those events that required attendance, litigants could either arrange for appointment of a special attorney to attend on their behalf or request that the event take place in the United States via international rogatory letters. Id . at *7. The Eleventh Circuit determined that since the forum selection clause was enforceable and applied here, the District Court’s forum non- conveniens analysis was appropriate. The Eleventh Circuit ruled that the District Court had carefully considered several public factors including the administrative difficulties associated with the Southern District of Florida’s busy docket, the interest of the United States in making sure its citizens generally have access to an American forum, Italy’s interest in adjudicating claims related to its tourism industry, the likely need to apply Italian law based on the Contract’s choice-of-law clause, and the fact that key events took place not in Florida but on board the Costa Luminosa in the Atlantic Ocean. Id . at *13-14. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that the District Court did not err in its discretion when it granted the Defendant’s motion to dismiss on forum non- conveniens grounds. Union Pacific Railroad Co., et al. v. Brotherhood Of Maintenance Of Way Employees Division Of The International Brotherhood Of Teamsters , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3267 (D. Neb. Jan. 7, 2021). Plaintiff, a railroad transportation company, filed a lawsuit against Defendant, a labor union representing Plaintiff’s employees working in maintenance of way services, alleging that Defendant’s threatened strike violated the Railway Labor Act (“RLA”). In November 2019, the parties started negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) after Defendant sought increased pay and additional time off for its members. The parties continued negotiating into 2020, and when the COVID-19 pandemic began, Plaintiff implemented various safety measures in accordance with the guidelines of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), such as requiring face coverings, enforcing social distancing, and providing 14 days paid leave for employees forced to quarantine due to COVID-19 exposure in the workplace. Id. at *6. However, Defendant was not satisfied with Plaintiff’s COVID-19 response and made several additional demands, including: (i) compensation for any time off related to COVID-19; (ii) onsite COVID-19 testing during the workday; (iii) employee temperature checks; (iv) forcing employees who have been in quarantine to obtain a negative test before returning to work; (v) personal protective equipment and daily sanitation of all necessary facilities and equipment; and (vi) enforcement of social distancing as a priority even over daily tasks. Id. at *9-10. Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Defendant from instituting a labor stoppage that would have allegedly violated the RLA. In response, Defendant contended that its threatened strike was unrelated to the CBA negotiations, but rather, constituted “a protected refusal to work under hazardous conditions pursuant to the [Federal Railroad Safety Act (“FRSA”)].” Id. at *11. The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion. It held that the RLA governed this dispute because it arose out of CBA negotiations. The Court reasoned that Defendant’s requested changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic were primarily of an economic nature, which was the same focus of the parties’ CBA negotiations. According to the Court, “merely adding claims regarding health measures does not remove Defendant’s economic demands from the ambit of the CBA.” Id. at *27. As to Defendant’s argument under the FRSA, the Court noted that the FRSA is an “anti-retaliation statute” concerned with hazardous job conditions that does not mention labor unions or strikes. Id. at *32. The Court concluded that COVID-19 did not pose a “work-specific” hazardous safety condition; rather, it determined that “the pandemic is, unfortunately, a worldwide and widespread problem confronting not just the union employees, but individuals of all walks of life.” Id. at 33. Finally, with respect to the traditional factors considered in deciding a motion for injunctive relief, the Court also reasoned that Plaintiff presented sufficient evidence showing that it would suffer substantial harm in the absence of an injunction, i.e. , Plaintiff claimed that it would lose millions of dollars in lost revenue and business opportunities if Defendant instituted a work stoppage. Therefore, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.