18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

78 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition initially argued that the RLA preempted all of Plaintiff’s claims. However, the Court found that Plaintiff’s claims were not so “inextricably intertwined or substantially dependent upon” the CBA as to warrant preemption since Plaintiff’s core allegation of age discrimination related to Defendants’ obligations that existed independently of the CBA. Id. at *30. The Non-Labor Defendants also challenged Plaintiff’s collective action allegations as insufficiently pled, but given that they raised the defense at the motion to dismiss stage, the Court held that Plaintiff set forth a viable ADEA claim and that it was too soon to address the sufficiency of his collective action allegations. Finally, the Non-Labor Defendants contended that Defendants Transtar and U.S. Steel (the parent corporations of Union Railroad Co.) were not Plaintiff’s “employers” under the ADEA. The Court agreed because Plaintiff’s only argument for these parties as his “employers” was centered on a joint employer theory of liability, which Plaintiff failed to mention in his complaint. Accordingly, the Court granted the Union’s motion to dismiss and granted in part the Non-Labor Defendants’ motion as to the liability of Defendants Transtar and U.S. Steel. (v) Settlement Approval Issues In ADEA Collective Action Litigation Rabin, et al. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41285 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of employment applicants, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant failed to hire applicants on the basis of their age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). The parties ultimately settled the matter and the Court granted preliminary settlement approval. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion for final settlement approval and for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. The Court granted final settlement approval and granted in part the motion for attorneys’ fees and cost. To compensate class and collective action members who filed claim forms, the settlement provided a common fund of $11,625,000, including: (i) up to $4.65 million in attorneys’ fees and up to $295,000 in costs to class counsel; (ii) service awards of $20,000 for each of the two named Plaintiffs, plus $2,000 for each of the 28 declarants, for a total of $96,000; (iii) up to $105,330 in settlement administration costs; (iv) up to $20,000 for an implementation expert to advise Defendant on implementation of programmatic relief; and (v) a $300,000 reserve fund for class and collective action members who filed claims for any alleged and valid age discrimination claims based on failure to hire after the conclusion of the litigation. The Court determined that the parties and the settlement administrator successfully executed the notice plan and that the class and collective action members received adequate notice of the settlement. Id . at *18. The Court also found the settlement to be reasonable given the challenge of fairly accounting for the disparate claims of class and collective members. Id . at *19. After reviewing all the required factors, the Court ruled that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate, and that certification of the settlement class was appropriate. The Court concluded that the settlement met the requirements of the applicable statutes and resolved a bona fide dispute. Id . at *19-20. Plaintiffs sought an attorneys’ fee award of 35%, or $4,068,750, of the fund, which was 40% greater ($1,162,500) than the Ninth Circuit’s standard benchmark of 25%. Id. at *20. Plaintiffs argued that their requested fee award was appropriate under either the percentage of recovery or the lodestar method of review. Id. The Court agreed with Plaintiffs. It held that the two-year programmatic relief program that Plaintiffs’ counsel secured had the potential to result in more older applicants applying for and being hired to positions, and that the case has been hard fought by Plaintiffs’ counsel on a contingency basis for over four years of litigation. Id . at *22-23. Using the lodestar cross- check, the Court determined that Plaintiffs requested a negative 0.6 multiplier, which supported the common fund percentage award. Accordingly, in light of the hours devoted to the case and other relevant factors, the Court awarded attorneys’ fees of $4,068,750. The Court also approved the award for costs. The Court likewise granted a service award of $20,000 to the named Plaintiffs, given the effort expended by each named Plaintiff and the potential for future adverse consequences to their employment. The Court also authorized an award of $1,000 for each of the 24 declarants, finding that the requested $2,000 each was not warranted. For these reasons, the Court granted final settlement approval and granted in part the award for attorneys’ fees and costs. (vi) Venue Issues In ADEA Collective Action Litigation Kincheloe, et al. v. American Airlines, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182390 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of flight attendants, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant discriminated against older flight attendants on the basis of their age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). Previously, Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, which the Court had granted. Plaintiffs contended that Defendant offered less valuable consideration to its older flight attendants than to its remaining flight attendants in exchange for the older flight attendants’ agreement to retire early. Id. at *2.