18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

720 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition the motion. The specific question Defendant requested that the Court certify for interlocutory review was “whether Defendant complied with the ADA’s command to defer payment of a Federal employees’ wages during a lapse in appropriations.” Id . at 2. The Court agreed that appellate review of the legal reasoning was warranted. The Court noted that the interplay between the FLSA and the ADA was critical to determining the scope of liability in the case and therefore was a controlling question of law. Further, the Court noted that there was a substantial ground for different of opinion with the Court’s original opinion. The Court also determined that there was no question that an immediate appeal would materially advance the timeline of the termination of the litigation. Accordingly, the Court found that granting leave for interlocutory appeal would be appropriate in this case. For these reasons, the Court stayed the action pending the resolution of the interlocutory appeal. Huntsman, et al. v. Southwest Airlines, Case No. 19-CV-83 (N.D. Cal. March 9, 2021). Plaintiff, a commercial airline pilot, brought a putative class action alleging that Defendant violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (“USERRA”) with its policy of failing to pay its employees when they took short-term military leave, while paying workers when they took comparable forms of leave, such as for jury duty leave, bereavement leave, and sick leave. Plaintiff moved for class certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), and the Court granted the motion. Subsequently, Defendant moved for a stay pending a petition to file an interlocutory appeal of the class certification ruling. The Court granted the motion. Defendant contested commonality, and the Court ruled that Plaintiff had identified two common questions that were likely to drive resolution of the litigation, including: (i) whether paid leave was a "right and benefit" that must be provided equally under § 4316(b) of the USERRA; and (ii) whether short-term military leave is comparable to jury duty, bereavement leave, or sick leave. The Court was unpersuaded by Defendant’s arguments contesting typicality, as it determined that it was evident that the nature of Plaintiff’s claim was the same as any other class member because each class member had been denied payment for short-term military leave. As to Rule 23(b)(3)’s requirement of predominance, the Court rejected each of Defendant’s three arguments against predominance, including: (i) a laches defense against certain class members; (ii) individual inquiries into each employee’s military service dates predominated; and (iii) Plaintiff had no damages model because he had testified that military leave records were flawed and inaccurate. The Court reasoned that the order granting class certification was not an easy assessment under Rule 23, and the Court was persuaded that Defendant raised serious questions as to the correctness of the order. The Court therefore granted Defendant’s motion to stay pending its request for interlocutory appeal. Kennedy, et al. v. Aegis Media America, Inc. , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170294 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of participants in Defendants’ 401k defined contribution plan (“the Plan”), filed a class action alleging that Defendants breached their duty of prudence under the ERISA. Defendants filed a motion to stay all proceedings pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Hughes v. Northwestern University , Case No. 19- 1401 (2021). The Court granted the motion. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants maintained certain funds in the Plan despite the availability of better, lower-cost options. The question before the U.S. Supreme Court in Hughes was “whether allegations that a defined-contribution retirement plan paid or charged its participants fees that substantially exceeded fees for alternative available investment products or services are sufficient to state a claim against plan fiduciaries for breach of the duty of prudence under ERISA.” Id . at *2. Defendants argued that the question presented in Hughes was identical to Plaintiffs’ claims in their action such that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling would be instructive. The Court determined that the balance of relevant factors weighed in favor of staying all proceedings pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Hughes . Id . at *3. The Court reasoned that the Hughes decision would settle the key issue bearing on Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss, i.e. , whether a Plaintiff states a claim for breach of the duty of prudence when it alleges that a Plan’s fiduciaries should have invested in other options. The Court noted that the interests of the Court and the public also weighed in favor of a stay, as the Supreme Court’s decision in Hughes would clarify a critical issue under the ERISA, and in doing so, promote the public and judicial "interest in the efficient conduct of litigation." Id . at *6. The Court further opined that the interests of Defendants and third-parties also weighed in favor of a stay, as the Hughes decision could effectively dismiss Plaintiffs’ action, and therefore Defendants could avoid the significant burdens imposed by continued proceedings. Finally, the Court noted that Plaintiffs would not suffer significant prejudice with the issuance of a stay. Accordingly, the Court granted the stay pending the ruling in Hughes .