18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

566 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition Valentine, et al. v. Collier, 993 F.3d 270 (5th Cir. 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of prison inmates, filed a class action alleging that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ health and safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment in light of the dangers of COVID-19 for a geriatric prison population, and that Defendants violated the ADA and Rehabilitation Act ("RA") by failing to accommodate for specific risks to wheelchair-bound and other mobility-impaired inmates. Id . at 278. The District Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. It required Defendants to engaged in several risk-mitigation and safety procedures to stop the spread of disease in the prison population. Following the implantation of the procedures, the District Court conducted an 18-day bench trial on whether a permanent injunction should be issued. The District Court ultimately issued the permanent injunction. It held that Defendants were deliberately indifferent under the Eighth Amendment, and that Defendants violated the ADA and the RA. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the District Court’s ruling. The Fifth Circuit held that given the steps taken by Defendants before the end of the trial, Plaintiffs failed to establish that they were entitled to injunctive relief. The Fifth Circuit reasoned that the record did not support a finding that there was the lack of a compliance regime to oversee the prison’s response to the virus constituted deliberate indifference. The Fifth Circuit also determined that Defendants responded to the virus with a prison-wide policy and relied on their staff to follow the policy, which was not unreasonable. The Fifth Circuit also opined that the record did not support the District Court’s finding that Defendants’ implementation of their testing strategy constituted deliberate indifference, as the guidelines of the Center for Disease Control (“CDC”) did not require or recommend mass testing, and the record was clear that Defendants began to roll-out mass testing when they had capacity to do so. Additionally, the Fifth Circuit explained that inmates’ grievances regarding mask use were too general to be legally significant. The Fifth Circuit found that the addition of handwashing stations was a reasonable response. The Fifth Circuit concluded that throughout the pandemic, Defendants looked to the CDC for appropriate guidance, implemented a COVID-19 response policy based on the agency’s guidance for detention centers, revised that policy numerous times, gave clean, laundered masks to all inmates daily, required masks for all inmates and staff, provided cleaning solution for individual cubicles, installed an electrostatic sprayer and additional handwashing stations, and implemented a testing strategy beyond what CDC detention center guidance recommended. Id . at 288. The Fifth Circuit thus ruled that the District Court erred in granting the permanent injunction, and it reversed and remanded the District Court’s ruling. Vozzolo, et al. v. Air Canada, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212832 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of airline ticket purchasers in consolidated class actions, sought a preliminary injunction in connection with lawsuits filed over Defendant’s denial of refunds for airline tickets purchased for flights that were cancelled as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff asserted that instead of offering or issuing a full refund for cancelled flights, Defendant advised Plaintiffs and other passengers that they were entitled only to a travel voucher to be used within a certain amount of time. Five lawsuits were filed and the U.S. Department of Transportation (“DOT”) sent a letter to Defendant setting forth its position that its practice of not offering refunds to ticketed passengers when the carrier canceled or significantly changed its flight was a unfair practice. Id . at *6. The DOT thereafter filed enforcement proceedings against Defendant. In turn, Defendant subsequently announced that it had entered into a series of debt and equity financing agreements with the Canadian Government whereby Defendant agreed to a number of commitments related to customer refunds. Id . at *7. Defendant thereafter initiated a “Refund Offer,” which provided the option of a refund to all eligible customers globally who purchased a non-refundable fare but could not travel due to COVID-19. Id . at *8. Plaintiffs then filed their motion for a preliminary injunction requesting that as the Refund Offer might have mooted the putative class members’ claims, Defendant should set aside a portion of any yet- to-be paid refunds for attorneys’ fees, pending a determination of whether Plaintiffs’ suits were "a substantial cause" of the Refund Offer. Id . at *15. The Court found that Plaintiffs demonstrated that irreparable harm would follow if a preliminary injunction was not granted, as well as substantial questions going to the merits of their claim for attorneys’ fees, and the balance of hardships tipped decidedly in Plaintiffs’ favor. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Yellenm, et al. v. Confederated Tribes Of The Chehalis Reservation, 141 S. Ct. 2434 (2021). Plaintiffs, several federally recognized Indian tribes, brought suit challenging the determination of the U.S. Department of the Treasury that the ANC Alaska Native corporations (“ANCs”) were eligible for relief under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”). The CARES Act allocated some $8 billion to “Tribal