18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 567 governments” to compensate for unbudgeted expenditures made in response to COVID-19. Id . at 2435. Plaintiffs argued that the ANCs were not federally recognized tribes, i.e., tribes with which the United States has entered into a government-to-government relationship, and therefore were not entitled to any of the allocated funding. The District Court entered summary judgment for Defendants, the Treasury Department, and the ANCs on the grounds that the ANCs were eligible for relief under the CARES Act. However, on further appeal, the D.C. Circuit reversed the District Court’s judgment and entered summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. In its ruling, the D.C. Circuit determined that the ANCs were not Indian tribes and were excluded from the CARES Act. Specifically, the D.C. Circuit found that because the CARES Act used the same language in another federal law, the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (“ ISDA”), Congress had intended the ANCs to be excluded from CARES Act. The D.C. Circuit looked to a clause taken from the ISDA, which addressed tribes recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians. On Defendants’ writ of certiorari challenging the D.C. Circuit’s ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and held that ANCs were Indian tribes under ISDA and thus were eligible for funding under the CARES Act. While Plaintiffs argued that Congress only intended for sovereign governments like themselves to receive the funding and not the ANCs, the Supreme Court concluded that under the plain meaning of ISDA, the ANCs were Indian tribes, regardless of whether they are also federally recognized tribes. In its ruling, the Supreme Court rejected Plaintiffs’ request to read the ISDA’s “Indian tribe” definition as a term of art. Id . at 2436. The Supreme Court concluded that Plaintiffs had failed to establish that the language of ISDA’s recognized-as- eligible clause was an accepted way of saying “a federally recognized tribe” in 1975, when the ISDA was passed. Id . at 2442. The Supreme Court determined that ANCs’ eligibility for benefits were established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, (“ANCSA”), the law that created the ANCs. The ANCSA, which made ANCs eligible to select tens of millions of acres of land and receive hundreds of millions of tax-exempt dollars, was a special program provided by the United States to “Indians,” i.e., Alaska Natives. Given that ANCSA was the only statute that the ISDA’s “Indian tribe” definition mentioned by name, the Supreme Court reasoned that eligibility for ANCSA’s benefits satisfied the definition’s final “recognized-as-eligible” clause under the ISDA. Id . at 2448. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the ANCs were “Indian tribes” under the ISDA and were therefore eligible to receive the CARES Act relief. Id . at 2458. For these reasons, the Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit’s judgment. (xxx) Cy Pres Issues In Class Actions Bowens, et al. v. EOS-USA Inc., Case No. 18-CV-5407 (N.D. Ill. April 8, 2021). Plaintiffs filed a class and collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay for time working off-the-clock in violation of the FLSA, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Illinois Wage Payment & Collection Act, and the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance. The parties ultimately settled the matter, and Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary settlement approval. The proposed settlement agreement contained a designation of a cy pres beneficiary to receive unclaimed settlement funds. The settlement agreement designated the Employee Rights Advocacy Institute for Law and Policy as the cy pres beneficiary. Pursuant to the entity’s website, it was the “related charitable public interest organization of the National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA).” Id . at 1. The Court determined that Plaintiffs’ counsel was actively involved in NELA, was on the Executive Board of NELA, held various other leadership roles in the NELA, and regularly participated in the group. Id . As a result, the Court reasoned that the involvement of Plaintiffs’ counsel with the organization raised a conflict of interest. For these reasons, the Court denied preliminary settlement approval and directed the parties to designate a different cy pres beneficiary. Krakauer, et al. v. Dish Network, LLC , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82087 (M.D.N.C. April 29, 2021) . Plaintiff filed a class action alleging that he had received multiple calls from Satellite Systems Network (“SSN”) trying to sell him the services of Defendant even though his number was on the national Do Not Call registry list. He claimed that Defendant’s actions violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). The District Court certified the class in 2015. Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff and assigned damages of $400 per call, for a total judgement of $61,342,800. Because not all of the judgment funds will be claimed by class members, the Court was required to decide what to do with the unclaimed funds. The Court therefore appointed a special master to help it evaluate potential cy pres recipients so that it could make an appropriate decision on cy pres issues. The parties identified three options, including: (i) donation to a cy pres recipient, a charity, or non-profit organization whose work was substantively related to TCPA violations; (ii) escheat to the government; or (iii) a reversion, whereby Defendant would receive any undisbursed funds. Id . at *11. The Special Master assigned to