Seyfarth Synopsis: At 878 pages, Seyfarth’s 14th Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report analyzes 1,408 rulings and is our biggest and most voluminous Report ever.

Click here to access the microsite featuring all the Report highlights. You can read about the four major trends of the past year, order your copy of the eBook, and download Chapters 1 and 2 on the 2018 Executive Summary and key class action settlements.

The Report was featured today in an exclusive article in the Wall Street Journal. Click here to read the coverage!

The Report is the sole compendium in the U.S. dedicated exclusively to workplace class action litigation, and has become the “go to” research and resource guide for businesses and their corporate counsel facing complex litigation. We were again honored this year with a review of our Report by Employment Practices Liability Consultant Magazine (“EPLiC”). Here is what EPLiC said: “The Report is a definitive ‘must-have’ for legal research and in-depth analysis of employment-related class action litigation.  Anyone who practices in this area, whether as an attorney, a business executive, a risk manager, an underwriter, a consultant, or a broker cannot afford to be without it. Importantly, the Report is the only publication of its kind in the United States. It is the sole compendium that analyzes workplace class actions from ‘A to Z.’”  Furthermore, EPLiC recognized our Report as the “state-of-the-art word” on workplace class action litigation. You can read more about the review here.

The 2018 Report analyzes rulings from all state and federal courts – including private plaintiff class actions and collective actions, and government enforcement actions –  in the substantive areas of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. It also features chapters on EEOC pattern or practice rulings, state law class certification decisions, and non-workplace class action rulings that impact employers. The Report also analyzes the leading class action settlements for 2017 for employment discrimination, wage & hour, ERISA class actions, and statutory workplace laws, as well as settlements of government enforcement actions, both with respect to monetary values and injunctive relief provisions.

We hope our loyal blog readers will enjoy it!

Executive Summary

The prosecution of workplace class action litigation by the plaintiffs’ bar has increased exponentially over the past decade. More often than not, class actions pose unique “bet-the-company” risks for employers. An adverse judgment in a class action has the potential to bankrupt a business and adverse publicity can eviscerate its market share. Likewise, the on-going defense of a class action can drain corporate resources long before the case even reaches a decision point.

Companies that do business in multiple states are also susceptible to “copy-cat” class actions, whereby plaintiffs’ lawyers create a domino effect of litigation filings that challenge corporate policies and practices in numerous jurisdictions at the same time. Hence, workplace class actions can adversely impact a corporation’s business operations, jeopardize or cut short the careers of senior management, and cost millions of dollars to defend. For these reasons, risks from workplace class actions are at the top of the list of challenges that keep business leaders up late at night.

Skilled plaintiffs’ class action lawyers and governmental enforcement litigators are not making this challenge any easier for companies. They are continuing to develop new theories and approaches to the successful prosecution of complex employment litigation. New rulings by federal and state courts have added to this patchwork quilt of compliance problems and risk management issues.

In turn, the events of the past year in the workplace class action world demonstrate that the array of litigation issues facing businesses are continuing to accelerate at a rapid pace while also undergoing significant change. Notwithstanding the transition to new leadership in the White House in 2017, governmental enforcement litigation pursued by the EEOC and the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) continued to manifest an aggressive “push-the-envelope” agenda by agencies, with regulatory oversight of workplace issues continuing as a high priority.

The combination of these factors are challenging businesses to integrate their litigation and risk mitigation strategies to navigate these exposures. These challenges are especially acute for businesses in the context of complex workplace litigation.

Adding to this mosaic of challenges in 2018 is the continuing evolution in federal policies based on a new political party occupying the White House for part of 2017. Furthermore, while changes to government priorities started on Inauguration Day and are on-going, others are being carried out by new leadership at the agency level who were appointed in the fourth quarter of this past year. As expected, many changes represent stark reversals in policy that are sure to have a cascading impact on private class action litigation. While predictions about the future of workplace class action litigation may cover a wide array of potential outcomes, the one sure bet is that change is inevitable and corporate America will continue to face new litigation challenges.

Key Trends Of 2017

An overview of workplace class action litigation developments in 2017 reveals four key trends.

First, the monetary value of the top workplace class action settlements rose dramatically in 2017. These numbers increased over past years, even after they had reached all-time highs in 2014 to 2016. The plaintiffs’ employment class action bar and governmental enforcement litigators were exceedingly successful in monetizing their case filings into large class-wide settlements, and they did so at decidedly higher values than in previous years. The top ten settlements in various employment-related class action categories totaled $2.72 billion in 2017, an increase of over $970 million from $1.75 billion in 2016. Furthermore, settlements of employment discrimination class actions experienced over a three-fold increase in value; statutory workplace class actions saw nearly a five-fold increase; and government enforcement litigation registered nearly a ten-fold increase. Whether this is the beginning of a long-range trend or a short-term aberration remains to be seen as 2018 unfolds, but the determinative markers suggest this upward trend will rise further in 2018, at least insofar as private plaintiff class actions are concerned.

Second, while federal and state courts issued many favorable class certification rulings for the plaintiffs’ bar in 2017, evolving case law precedents and new defense approaches resulted in better outcomes for employers in opposing class certification requests. Plaintiffs’ lawyers continued to craft refined class certification theories to counter the more stringent Rule 23 certification requirements established in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011). As a result, in the areas of employment discrimination and ERISA class actions, the plaintiffs’ bar scored well in securing class certification rulings in federal courts in 2017 (over comparative figures for 2016). Class actions were certified in significant numbers in “magnet” jurisdictions that continued to issue decisions that encourage – or, in effect, force – the resolution of large numbers of claims through class-wide mechanisms. Yet, while the sheer volume of wage & hour certification decisions in 2017 increased as compared to last year, employers actually fared better in litigating those class certification motions in federal court than last year. Of the 257 wage & hour certification decisions in 2017, plaintiffs won 170 of 233 conditional certification rulings (approximately 73%), but lost 15 of 24 decertification rulings (approximately 63%). By way of comparison, there were 224 wage & hour certification decisions in 2016, where plaintiffs won 147 of 195 conditional certification rulings (approximately 76%) and lost 13 of 29 decertification rulings (approximately 45%). In sum, employers beat slightly more first stage conditional certification motions in 2017, and dramatically increased their odds – a jump of 18% – of fracturing cases with successful decertification motions.

Third, filings and settlements of government enforcement litigation in 2017 did not reflect a head-snapping pivot from the ideological pro-worker (or anti-big business) outlook of the Obama Administration to a pro-business, less regulation/litigation viewpoint of the Trump Administration. Instead, as compared to 2016, government enforcement litigation actually increased in 2017. As an example, the EEOC alone brought 184 lawsuits in 2017 as compared to 86 lawsuits in 2016. Further, the settlement value of the top ten settlements in government enforcement cases jumped dramatically – from $52.3 million in 2016 to $485.25 million in 2017. The explanations for this phenomenon are wide and varied, and include the time-lag between Obama-appointed enforcement personnel vacating their offices and Trump-appointed personnel taking charge of agency decision-making power; the number of lawsuits “in the pipeline” that were filed during the Obama Administration that came to conclusion in the past year; and the “hold-over” effect whereby Obama-appointed policy-makers remained in their positions long enough to continue their enforcement efforts before being replaced in the last half of 2017. This trend is critical to employers, as both the DOL and the EEOC have had a focus on “big impact” lawsuits against companies and “lead by example” in terms of areas that the private plaintiffs’ bar aims to pursue. As 2018 opens, it appears that the content and scope of enforcement litigation undertaken by the DOL and the EEOC in the Trump Administration will tilt away from the pro-employee/anti-big business mindset of the previous Administration. Trump appointees at the DOL and the EEOC are slowly but surely “peeling back” on positions previously advocated under the Obama Administration. As a result, it appears inevitable that the volume of government enforcement litigation and value of settlement numbers from those cases will decrease in 2018. The ultimate effect, however, may well prompt the private plaintiffs’ class action bar to “fill the void” and expand the volume of workplace litigation pursued against employers over the coming year as the DOL and the EEOC adjust their litigation enforcement activities.

Fourth and finally, class action litigation increasingly has been shaped and influenced by recent rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court. Over the past several years, the U.S. Supreme Court has accepted more cases for review – and issued more rulings – that have impacted the prosecution and defense of class actions and government enforcement litigation. The past year continued that trend, with several key decisions on complex employment litigation and class action issues that were arguably more pro-business than decisions in past years. More cases also were accepted for review in 2017 that are positioned for rulings in 2018, including what may be the most high-stakes issue impacting employers since the Wal-Mart ruling in 2011 – the Epic Systems, Murphy Oil, and E & Y trilogy of cases on the legality of workplace arbitration agreements with class action waivers. The ruling expected in the Epic System, Murphy Oil, and E & Y cases in 2018 may well change the class action playing field in profound ways. Coupled with the appointment of Justice Neil Gorsuch in 2017 and potential additional appointments to the Supreme Court by President Trump in 2018 and beyond, litigation dynamics may well be re-shaped in ways that further change the playbook for prosecuting and defending class actions.

Implications For Employers

The one constant in workplace class action litigation is change. More than any other year in recent memory, 2017 was a year of great change in the landscape of Rule 23. As these issues play out in 2018, additional chapters in the class action playbook will be written.

The lesson to draw from 2017 is that the private plaintiffs’ bar and government enforcement attorneys at the state level are apt to be equally, if not more, aggressive in 2018 in bringing class action and collective action litigation against employers.

These novel challenges demand a shift of thinking in the way companies formulate their strategies. As class actions and collective actions are a pervasive aspect of litigation in Corporate America, defending and defeating this type of litigation is a top priority for corporate counsel. Identifying, addressing, and remediating class action vulnerabilities, therefore, deserves a place at the top of corporate counsel’s priorities list for 2018.

 

By: Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Christopher J. DeGroff, Matthew J. Gagnon, and Kyla Miller

Seyfarth Synopsis: We are once again pleased to offer our loyal blog readers a breakdown of the five most intriguing developments in EEOC litigation in 2017, in addition to a pre-publication preview of our annual report on developments and trends in EEOC-initiated litigation. This year’s book, titled EEOC-Initiated Litigation: FY 2017, provides a comprehensive examination of the EEOC’s FY 2017 filings (from October 2016 through September 2017), and the major decisions handed down this year in pending EEOC litigation.

In our view, every employer should be monitoring EEOC activity – it is the surest way to avoid becoming the EEOC’s next target. That is why we conduct a thorough analysis of all EEOC activity every year to keep our readers up to date on current trends and, hopefully, provide a peek inside the EEOC’s decision-making process. Our annual report is targeted towards HR professionals, corporate counsel, and other corporate decision-makers. We hope that it proves useful as they attempt to steer clear of EEOC-initiated litigation in FY 2018.

This year, we have once again categorized our analysis of substantive developments in line with the EEOC’s strategic priorities. This year is the first year of the EEOC’s new Strategic Enforcement Plan, which covers Fiscal Year 2017 through 2021. The new SEP advances the same six strategic priorities as the previous strategic plan. It has been our experience that analyzing developments in EEOC litigation in light of the SEP priorities provides a better understanding of the EEOC’s focus and agenda.

The full publication will be offered for download as an eBook. To order a copy, please click here.

As always, we like to take a moment at the end of one year, and the beginning of the next, to look back at the most intriguing decisions and developments of the year.

Here is our list of the “top five” most intriguing developments of 2017.

A Year Of Transition: Litigation On Track Despite Changes On The Way

FY 2017 was a year of transition for the EEOC. It is still too early to tell how the changed political landscape will impact the future of EEOC litigation given the important positions that remain vacant for high-level agency personnel. But this did not stop the EEOC from charging full speed ahead. Total merits filings were up more than 100% over FY 2016. In fact, the EEOC filed more lawsuits in September than it did in all of FY 2016 combined. Although the 2017-2021 Strategic Enforcement Plan maintains its focus on the same six strategic enforcement priorities, it added two substantive areas as emerging issues, including complex employment relationships and “backlash discrimination” against Muslims, Sikhs, and other persons of Arab, Middle Eastern, or South Asian descent. Those are important issues to watch in FY 2018 and beyond. Our analysis of these issues can be found here.

A New Standard Of Review For EEOC Subpoena Enforcement Actions

In McLane Co. v. EEOC, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the scope of review for appellate courts reviewing a lower court’s decision to enforce (or not) an EEOC administrative subpoena. In McLane, the Supreme Court held that such decisions are reviewable under the abuse-of-discretion standard, which is more akin to a hands-off type of review. The decision clarified that the District Courts should subject EEOC subpoenas to a searching, fact-intensive review, and that their judgment in this respect should be respected by the appellate courts. Although ostensibly a win for the EEOC, the decision makes it clear that the District Court cannot simply presume the relevance of information or documents the EEOC seeks with its administrative subpoenas. Instead, a District Court must give serious consideration to issues of relevancy and burden when deciding whether or not to enforce an EEOC subpoena. Our analysis of this trend can be found here.

Developments In Religious Discrimination Law: Accommodations May Be Required For Wide Swath Of Beliefs

In EEOC v. Consol Energy, Inc., the Fourth Circuit expanded the scope of religious accommodation requests employers must consider. In Consol, the EEOC alleged that the defendants refused to provide an employee with a religious accommodation by subjecting him to a biometric hand scanner to clock in and out of work. The employee believed a hand scanner was used to identify and collect personal information that would be used by the Christian Anti-Christ to identify followers with the “mark of the beast,” as described in the New Testament Book of Revelation. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court against the employer, finding that a religious accommodation was necessary. Our discussion of this development can be found here.

Sexual Harassment In The Workplace: Focus on “Manager”

Given all the recent news about sexual harassment in the workplace, and the fast developing #MeToo movement, we suspect that the EEOC is already preparing for an uptick in sexual harassment complaints in FY 2018. But recent decisions show that not all complaints alleging sexual harassment are a slam dunk for employees. In EEOC v. Autozone, Inc., the Sixth Circuit affirmed a U.S. District Court’s grant of an employer’s motion for summary judgment after finding that the harassing managerial employee was not a “supervisor” under Title VII. The employer was thus not liable for the employee’s actions. The Sixth Circuit held that just because someone is titled a “manager” does not necessarily mean that they are “supervisors” under Title VII. They must have the authority to take an employment action against the complaining employee. A further discussion on this development can be found here. We expect decisions in FY 2018 will dramatically reshape the landscape of harassment law, with the EEOC leading the way.

EEOC’s Penchant For Expanding Pattern Or Practice Cases

In FY 2017, the EEOC continued to try to expand its powers to prosecute large-scale pattern or practice cases. In EEOC v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC, a District Court in Texas was willing to reign it in. In that case, the EEOC attempted to add claims on behalf of individuals who had not yet applied to work for Bass Pro at the time the EEOC tried to conciliate its claims against Bass Pro. Title VII requires the EEOC to attempt to resolve charges of discrimination against an employer through means of conciliation before it seeks redress in the courts. In this case, the District Court was unwilling to allow the EEOC to add claimants on behalf of whom it could not have conciliated prior to bringing its lawsuit. A closer look at this development can be found here.

Although we are almost a full year into the Trump Administration and Republican control of Congress, it is still unclear what those political developments will mean for the future of EEOC litigation. The enforcement priorities are the same as the past four years. But how the EEOC chooses to interpret those priorities will undoubtedly change as high-level positions are filled by the Trump Administration. This makes FY 2018 a year of uncertainty as we await those changes in EEOC leadership. We look forward to keeping our readers apprised of these changes as they occur!

Readers can also find this post on our EEOC Countdown blog here.

The Workplace Class Action Team wanted to take the time to wish all of our loyal blog readers a very Happy New Year. We will be taking the next few days to reflect on the year and recharge. We look forward to bringing you more interesting and though provoking content on workplace class action issues as we enter into 2018 – including our start-of-the-year kick-off publication – Seyfarth Shaw’s Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report. We anticipate going to press on January 10th and launching the 2018 Report to our readers from our blog. Stay tuned!

 

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Thomas E. Ahlering

 Seyfarth Synopsis:  As the number of class action lawsuits alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy (“BIPA”) has exploded in the last six months, defendants have been eagerly awaiting guidance from an Illinois appellate court regarding what a Plaintiff must allege in order to have a viable right of action under the statute. In Rosenbach v. Six Flags, 2017 IL App (2d) 170317 (Ill. App. Ct., Dec. 21, 2017), the Illinois Appellate Court for the Second District issued the first such ruling in this area, holding that a Plaintiff must allege an actual injury to be “aggrieved” under the Act in order to seek statutory damages and injunctive relief. 

The decision represents a significant victory for employers because defendants in both federal and state courts – facing potentially catastrophic damages under the statute for implementation of biometric technology for various purposes, including timekeeping practices – have made similar arguments that plaintiffs alleging mere technical violations of the statute are not “persons aggrieved,” thereby entitling plaintiffs to statutory damages and injunctive relief.  The decision in Rosenbach provides clarity as to the viability of certain potential employer defenses in BIPA class actions, particularly at the motion to dismiss stage.  Most notably, the decision will almost certainly serve to shift the tide in favor of employers facing BIPA class actions.

***

The Illinois Appellate Court’s Decision

In Rosenbach, Plaintiff, as the mother of her minor son, brought a class action on behalf of herself and all others similarly-situated, alleging that Defendants Six Flags Entertainment Corp. (“Six Flags”) and Great America LLC (“Great America”) violated the BIPA when her son purchased a season pass for Great America theme park and defendants fingerprinted him using a biometric scanner without obtaining written consent or disclosing their plan for the collection, storage, use, or destruction of his biometric identifiers or information.  Rosenbach,  2017 IL App (2d) 170317, *1.  Defendants moved to dismiss on the grounds that Plaintiff was not a “person aggrieved by a violation” of the BIPA as required by the statute in order for a Plaintiff to have a right of action because Plaintiff alleged mere technical violations of the statute.  Id. (quoting 740 ILCS 14/20).

The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, but later certified two questions for appellate review relating to whether a person aggrieved by a violation of the BIPA must allege some actual harm, including: (1) whether an individual is an aggrieved person under section 20 of BIPA and may seek statutory damages authorized under the BIPA when the only injury he or she alleges is a violation that a defendant collected his or her biometric identifiers and/or biometric information without providing him or her the disclosures and obtaining written consent; and (2) whether an individual is an aggrieved person under section 20 of the BIPA and may seek injunctive relief authorized under the BIPA when the only injury he or she alleges is a violation that a defendant collected his or her biometric identifiers and/or biometric information without providing him or her the disclosures and obtaining written consent.  Id. *3.

The Illinois Appellate Court answered both questions in the negative and held that a Plaintiff must allege an actual injury to be “aggrieved” under the Act.  In so holding, the Illinois Appellate Court analyzed the plain language of the statute and consulted various definitions of “aggrieved,” including Black’s Law Dictionary, to find that “there must be actual injury, adverse effect, or harm in order for [a] person to be ‘aggrieved.’”  Id.

It further noted:

Likewise, if the Illinois legislature intended to allow for a private cause of action for every technical violation of the Act, it could have omitted the word “aggrieved” and stated that every violation was actionable. A determination that a technical violation of the statute is actionable would render the word “aggrieved” superfluous. Therefore, a plaintiff who alleges only a technical violation of the statute without alleging some injury or adverse effect is not an aggrieved person under section 20 of the Act.

Id. *4.

In sum, the primary holding of the case is that “[i]f a person alleges only a technical violation of the Act without alleging any injury or adverse effect, then he or she is not aggrieved and may not recover under any of the provisions in section 20.”  Id. *5.

Analysis And Implications For Employers

The Illinois Appellate Court’s decision constitutes a significant victory for employers facing BIPA class actions.

Most notably, the Illinois Appellate Court held that a Plaintiff cannot proceed on a claim for either statutory damages or injunctive relief for mere technical violations of the statute.  This holding is key for employers because class actions brought under the BIPA frequently consist of cookie cutter complaints which merely allege technical violations of the BIPA (i.e., failure to obtain written consent, failure to maintain a “publically available” biometric privacy plan, and failure to provide notice of biometric retention and destruction policies) and not an actual injury (i.e., identity theft).

While the decision represents a significant decision at this juncture in favor of employers, we anticipate that the Plaintiffs’ class action bar will continue to attempt craft creative arguments to circumvent this ruling and find a way to argue that an individual is an “aggrieved person” for purposes of the BIPA.

Accordingly, employers should remain vigilant and ensure that they are in compliance with the BIPA’s requirements to ensure that a mere “technical” violation of the statute does not result in something which could constitute an actual injury entitling an individual to pursue statutory damages and injunctive relief.

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Alex W. Karasik

Seyfarth Synopsis: In a class action asserting claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and statutory fraud in regards to the sale of general-use, pre-paid gift cards, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the final approval of a settlement agreement whereby the attorneys’ fees and costs totaled $1.95 million, while the class members would only receive approximately $1.8 million.

This ruling highlights the plaintiff attorney-driven culture of class action litigation, putting businesses and employers on notice as to who they are really defending against in these high-stakes lawsuits.

***

In Kaufman, et al. v. American Express Travel Related Services Co., Inc., No. 16-1691, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 24698 (7th Cir. Dec. 7, 2017), Plaintiffs alleged, among other claims, that American Express general-use, pre-paid gift cards were not “good all over the place” as the labeling had indicated.  Id. at *2.  Nearly ten years after the lawsuit was filed, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois approved the parties’ settlement agreement, which provided that Plaintiffs’ attorneys would receive $1.95 million in attorneys’ fees and costs, while class members would receive approximately $1.8 million in damages.  After two intervernors (“Intervenors”) appealed the District Court’s final approval of the settlement agreement, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the approval of the settlement, holding the District Court did not abuse its discretion even though the “settlement [was] not without issues.”  Id. at *2.

With the class members’ attorneys earning more in the settlement than the class members themselves, this ruling is instructive for businesses in regards to litigation strategies in the class action landscape.

Case Background

In 2007, Plaintiffs filed a class action in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, against American Express.  The claims arose out of American Express’s sale of general-use, pre-paid gift cards, where a customer could buy a gift card by paying the amount to be loaded on the card (e.g., $25, $50, or $100) and a purchase fee of less than $5.  The packaging in which the gift cards came declared they were “good all over the place.”  Id. at *2.

In 2011, after the case was ultimately removed to the District Court, it granted preliminary approval of the settlement and certified the class for settlement purposes.  Id. at *8.  After multiple amended motions for approval and three rounds of notice to the class, the District Court granted final approval of the settlement in 2016.  Id. at *10.  In approving the settlement, the District Court awarded $1,000,000 in fees and $40,000 in expenses to Plaintiffs’ counsel, $250,000 in fees to additional class counsel, and $700,000 in fees to counsel for the Intervenors, while class members would receive approximately $1,800,000.  The District Court “found [the settlement] acceptable as any reduction in fees would not go to the benefit of the class. Any excess would go either to the cy pres or to Amex.”  Id. at *12.

Thereafter, on appeal to the Seventh Circuit, the Intervenors alleged that the District Court erred: (1) by not requiring the filing of briefs in support of the settlement prior to the deadline to object to the settlement; (2) in determining that American Express’s arbitration appeal posed a risk to the class’s success; (3) in approving the settlement given the breadth of the release; and (4) in not awarding most, if not all, of the attorneys’ fees to the Intervenors’ counsel.

The Seventh Circuit’s Decision

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s approval of the settlement agreement, holding the District Court did not abuse its discretion.  First, the Seventh Circuit held that there is no requirement for the filing of briefs in support of a settlement agreement.  Id. at *15.

Second, the Seventh Circuit found that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that a pending appeal concerning an arbitration provision was a significant potential bar to the class’s success in this action.  Id. at *20.

Third, the Seventh Circuit held that the release language in the settlement agreement was not overly broad, as the Intervenors had argued, since there was no admissible evidence that additional purported claims existed, and further, that the total size of the class was unknown.  Id. at *22-23.

Fourth, noting that the District Court had dealt with the parties and their counsel for nearly seven years, the Seventh Circuit opined that the District Court was in the best position to determine which parties and attorneys had contributed to the settlement and in what proportions, and therefore it did not abuse its discretion.  Id. at *26.

Accordingly, while acknowledging that the District Court “did not approve a perfect settlement,” the Seventh Circuit held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion, and therefore it affirmed the District Court’s approval of the settlement.  Id. at *27.

Implications For Employers

Any class action settlement approval order where the plaintiffs’ attorneys walk away with more money than their clients is an eye-opener.  While some businesses that have encountered consumer or workplace class actions can point to instances where fighting plaintiffs’ counsel tooth and nail over the course of several years ultimately resulted in a favorable result, the Seventh Circuit’s ruling in Kaufman should serve as a cautionary tale for companies regarding the accumulation of enormous attorneys’ fees.  A major takeaway for businesses is that even in situations where the parties in a class action settle within the first few years of its filing, they must be cognizant of how the settlement approval process, including the potential interjection of objectors and intervenors, can quickly become expensive, and perhaps even worth more than the actual claims at issue.  As such, even though this settlement approval is more of an exception as opposed to the norm, businesses and their outside counsel must focus on efficiently managing the settlement process to minimize their exposure to attorneys’ fees and costs.

By Christopher M. Cascino and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Seyfarth Synopsis: In Ellis v. Google, Inc., No. CGC-17-561299 (Cal Sup. Ct. Dec. 4, 2017), Judge Mary Wiss of the Superior Court of California granted a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit brought by Google employees who claimed that all female Google employees are paid less than their counterparts.  Specifically, Judge Wiss found that the plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient facts to conclude that Google paid all female employees less than their male counterparts, even though the complaint alleged that a statistical analysis “found systematic compensation disparities against women pretty much across the entire workforce.”  Id.  at 4. This case represents a win for employers, who too often are forced to defend large class actions based on conclusory allegations.

Case Background

Three former female Google employees filed a putative class action in the Superior Court of California, alleging that Google “maintained throughout California a ‘centrally determined and uniformly applied policy and/or practice of paying its female employees less than male employees for substantially similar work.’”  Id. at 2.  To support this allegation, the plaintiffs also alleged that the U.S. Department of Labor found that, with respect to Google’s Mountain View office in 2015, “‘systematic compensation disparities against women pretty much across the entire workforce.’”  Id.  The plaintiffs asserted four causes of action against Google based on the alleged disparity, including a California Equal Pay Act claim, a California Labor Code claim, a Business and Professions Code claim, and a claim for declaratory judgment.  The plaintiffs purported to bring these claims on behalf of all female Google employees in California.

Decision

The Court observed that a class action complaint should be dismissed where, “assuming the truth of the factual allegations in the complaint, there is no reasonable possibility that the requirements for class certification will be satisfied.”  Id. at 3.  The Court then discussed the requirements for class certification under California law, including: “(a) an ascertainable and sufficiently numerous class; (b) a well-defined community of interest; and (c) substantial benefits from certification that render proceeding as a class superior to the alternatives.”  Id. at 4.  With respect to the second factor, the Court observed that it has three factors, including “(a) predominant common questions of law or fact; (b) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class; and (c) class representatives who can adequately represent the class.”  Id.

The Court found that the plaintiffs did not allege sufficient facts to conclude that there was an ascertainable class.  Even though the plaintiffs defined the class as “all women employed by Google in California,” which on its face was ascertainable, the Court found the definition overbroad because the plaintiffs offered “no means  by which only those class members who have claims can be identified from those who should not be included in the class.”  Id.  Significantly, the Court found that the plaintiffs’ allegation that the U.S. Department of Labor “‘found systemic compensation disparities against women pretty much across the entire workforce’” at a Google office in 2015 was insufficient to support the conclusion that “Google implemented a uniform policy of paying all female employees less than male employees for substantially equal or similar work.”  Id.  The Court observed that the complaint did not “specify, for example, the specific job classifications it pertains to, or whether the comparison was made against men who perform substantially similar work under similar working conditions.”  Id.

The Court also concluded that the plaintiffs failed to allege that there were common questions of law and fact that predominated over individual issues because the plaintiffs’ class was “overbroad,” so liability could not be decided for all putative class members in one proceeding.  Id. at 5. The Court further opined that the plaintiffs’ conclusory allegation that they “performed ‘equal work’ as their male counterparts” was insufficient to allege that they, in fact, performed equal work, and dismissed their individual claims.  Id. at 6.

Implications For Employers

The Ellis case has been closely watched as it is a significant workplace class action in a worker-friendly jurisdiction. The ruling of December 4 is a win for employers insofar as companies, especially in California, can use the decision to try to stop class actions at the pleadings stage.  When moving to dismiss such complaints, employers should lay out what conclusions can be drawn from assuming specific factual allegations are true, as they may have far less significance than may appear at first glance.  Employers should also continue reminding courts that class actions are only appropriate when they can create common answers to common questions, which is often not the case in large, overbroad class actions, and that conclusory allegations are insufficient to state claims.

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Seyfarth Synopsis: Each year the American Tort Reform Association (“ATRA”) publishes its “Judicial Hellholes Report” that focuses on litigation problems in state court systems and challenges for corporate defendants in the fair and unbiased administration of justice. The ATRA’s 2017 Report was recently published; a copy is here, as well as an executive summary here.

Insofar as the Report defines a judicial hellhole as a jurisdiction where judges in civil cases systematically apply laws and procedures in an unfair and unbalanced manner, the Judicial Hellholes Report is an important read for corporate counsel facing class action exposures. In sum, if one has to litigate class actions and make decisions with respect to venue strategy, the Report is a “must read.”

The 2017 Hellholes

The ATRA identified 8 jurisdictions on its 2017 hellholes list – including, in order, (1) Florida (particularly in the Florida Supreme Court and trial courts in southern Florida), (2) California, (3) St. Louis, Missouri, (4) New York (especially in its treatment of asbestos litigation in New York City), (5) Philadelphia (especially in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas), (6) New Jersey, (7) Illinois (especially Cook and Madison counties), and (8) Louisiana. As corporate counsel are undoubtedly aware, these are “magnet” venues for Plaintiffs’ class action lawyers and less than optimal venues for corporate defendants to be sued.

The 2017 “Watch List”

The ATRA also included 7 jurisdictions on its “watch list,” including Baltimore, Maryland, Georgia (principally in the Georgia Supreme Court), Newport News, Virginia (especially in asbestos litigation), Oregon (particularly in the Oregon Supreme Court), Pennsylvania (in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and West Virginia. Just a notch below the 8 hellholes, the “watch list” jurisdictions also present significant challenges for corporate defendants.

Implications For Employers

The Judicial Hellholes Report dovetails with the experience of employers in high-stakes workplace class actions, as Florida, California, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Illinois, and Louisiana are among the leading states where Plaintiffs’ lawyers file employment discrimination and wage & hour class actions in state courts. These jurisdictions are linked by class certification standards that are more plaintiff-friendly and by generous damages recoveries possibilities under state laws.

 

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Alex W. Karasik

Seyfarth Synopsis:  In an ADEA action brought by the EEOC alleging that the New Mexico Department of Corrections failed to promote correctional officers over the age of 40, a federal district court in New Mexico denied the employer’s motion to dismiss but ordered the EEOC to file a supplemental pleading identifying previously unnamed aggrieved parties.

For employers facing EEOC age discrimination claims, this ruling provides insight into how to attack allegations relative to unidentified aggrieved individuals and to flush out the true size and scope of an EEOC systemic lawsuit.

***

In EEOC v. State of New Mexico, Dep’t of Corrections, No. 15-CV-879, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198770 (D.N.Mex. Dec. 4, 2017), the EEOC alleged that from January 2009 to at least December 2014, the New Mexico Department of Corrections (“NMDC”) denied employment opportunities to three specific workers and a group of unidentified aggrieved individuals aged 40 and over on the basis of their age.  The NMDC moved to dismiss with respect to the unidentified aggrieved individuals, arguing those claims were insufficiently plead, and further, that the EEOC failed to provide sufficient notice about any additional aggrieved individuals during the pre-filing conciliation period. 

The EEOC moved to convert the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment after the NMDC attached to its motion exhibits relating to the EEOC’s investigation and conciliation.  Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico denied both motions, but  ordered the EEOC to file a supplemental pleading listing the names of each aggrieved party.

Employers can use this decision in ADEA litigation to argue that the EEOC should identify any unnamed aggrieved individuals at the outset of litigation. In this respect, it is a key ruling for employers.

Case Background

The EEOC alleged that the NMDC failed to promote three correctional officers to various positions at the Central New Mexico Correctional Facility because they were over the age of 40.  The former warden allegedly told the officers that “while [two Claimants] were qualified for the [position], he selected a 31-year-old candidate because he was looking for someone with ‘longevity.’”  Id. at *2.  The EEOC also alleged that the warden: (1) made many of the decisions to deny employment opportunities to older workers; (2) used ageist comments about longevity, preferring younger workers, and not promoting employees near retirement; and (3) instilled a culture of age discrimination that continued to be applied by the NMDC.  As such, the EEOC sought an injunction requiring policy changes and money damages for any individual adversely impacted by the discrimination.

Arguing that the EEOC failed to provide sufficient notice about any additional aggrieved individuals during the pre-filing conciliation period, the NMDC moved to dismiss the amended complaint.  In support of its motion, NMDC sought to offer several exhibits, including: (1) requests for information propounded on the NMDC by the EEOC; (2) the EEOC’s letter to the NMDC’s employees soliciting information or claims; and (3) letters and e-mails between the parties relating to EEOC’s efforts at conference, conciliation, and investigation.  Id. at *5.  The EEOC argued that if the Court was willing to entertain evidence regarding pre-filing communications, then the motion to dismiss should be converted to a motion for summary judgment.  Id. at *3.

The Court’s Decision

The Court denied the NMDC’s motion to dismiss, denied the EEOC’s motion to convert the convert the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment, and ordered the EEOC to file a supplemental pleading listing the names of each aggrieved party involved in this lawsuit.  First, the Court addressed the NMDC’s argument that the exhibits were “implicitly referenced” in the EEOC’s allegations regarding its pre-filing investigation.  Id. at *5.  The Court rejected this argument, opining that “implicit, subtle, or passing references to extraneous evidence” did not justify their inclusion.  Id.  As such, the Court excluded the NMDC’s exhibits, and therefore denied the EEOC’s motion to convert.

Second, the Court addressed the NMDC’s argument that the Court should consider the lack of actual pre-litigation notice as part of the notice pleading inquiry, including its knowledge about the potential number of claimants, facilities, and wrongdoers.  Id. at *6.  According to the NMDC, any potential recovery should be limited to the claimants the EEOC actually knew about when conciliation concluded in September of 2013.  The Court held that it would allow the parties to amend their pending summary judgment motions to supplement any evidence and arguments regarding actual pre-litigation notice and timeliness, but that “a motion to dismiss typically is not the correct vehicle for determining whether a claim is barred based on when it arises.”  Id. at *7.

Third, the Court addressed the NMDC’s argument that the EEOC failed to meet the pleading standards defined in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), and Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).  The Court opined that there is no binding case law addressing how much information the EEOC’s complaint must provide about unidentified parties.  Id. at *9.  Further, it instructed that courts are more permissive about the class-type allegations where the complaint is very specific about the charging parties.  Id. at *10 (citations omitted).  Applying these principles, the Court held that the complaint stated a plausible claim for relief on behalf of the unidentified aggrieved individuals since it described the types of discrimination at issue (age); the group of workers (NMDC workers over the age of 40); and the duration of the discriminatory conduct (since 2009 and ongoing).  Id.  Accordingly, the Court denied the NMDC’s motion to dismiss.

Finally, at oral argument, the EEOC offered to file an amended complaint to satisfy the party plaintiff rule, if the Court found it applied.  Id. at *12.  Instructing that the ADEA incorporated the requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 216(c), the Court ordered the EEOC to identify each aggrieved individual in the record by filing a supplemental pleading.  Id. at *11-12.  The Court also permitted the NMDC the option to file a response, but advised that the Court would prefer to address additional substantive arguments through the summary judgment proceedings.  Accordingly, the Court denied the NMDC’s motion to dismiss, denied the EEOC’s motion to convert the convert the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment, and ordered the EEOC to file a supplemental pleading listing the names of each allegedly aggrieved worker on whose behalf the EEOC sought recovery.

Implications For Employers

In its Strategic Enforcement Plan for Fiscal Years 2017-2021, the EEOC identified eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring as one of its six priorities (as we blogged about here).  One of the prime areas where the EEOC has been targeting employers involves age discrimination.  This litigation should put employers on notice that promotional and hiring decisions will be closely scrutinized by the EEOC.

Further, although the Court did not reach the issue of whether the EEOC fulfilled its conciliation obligations with respect to the unnamed group of allegedly aggrieved individuals, this employer’s attack of the EEOC’s failure to fulfill its pre-suit obligations under Title VII resulted in the Court ordering the Commission to file a supplemental pleading identifying such individuals.  Although the employer’s motion to dismiss was denied, employers can cite to this ruling in ADEA litigation when arguing that the EEOC should “put its cards on the table” and disclose who exactly is part of the lawsuit.

Readers can also find this post on our EEOC Countdown blog here.

 

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Alex W. Karasik

Seyfarth Synopsis:  In an ADA action alleging that a maker of train components discriminated against a group of applicants by regarding them as disabled, a federal district court in Illinois granted the EEOC’s partial motion for summary judgment, holding that the company’s decision to deny them work was based on improper tests concerning prospective injuries.

Employers should keep this ruling on their radar when considering medical testing in the job application process.

***

In EEOC v. Amsted Rail Co., No. 3:14-CV-1292, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189713 (S.D. Ill. Nov. 16, 2017), Amsted made conditional job offers to thirty-nine applicants (the “Claimants”) for chipper positions, but placed them on medical hold because of abnormal results from a nerve conduction test (“NCT”).  Id. at *2-6.  The EEOC argued that Amsted violated the ADA by not hiring the Claimants on the basis of disability in regards to job application procedures and hiring.  Id. at *7-8.  Amsted justified its refusal to hire the Claimants by asserting there was a higher risk of developing carpal tunnel syndrome (“CTS”) for those with abnormal NCT results.  After both parties cross-moved for summary judgment, Judge J. Phil Gilbert of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted in part the EEOC’s motion for partial summary judgment, holding that the NCT did not indicate the Claimants’ contemporaneous inability to perform the chipper job, but only a prospective, future threat to their health if they were to perform the job. 

This ruling illustrates that employers must be careful not to make hiring decisions based on the potential of future medical injuries.

Case Background

Amsted employs “chippers” to finish the surfaces of the steel side frames for railcar components.  Id. at *3.  Chippers use pneumatically powered tools, such as 12-pound sledgehammers, to perform their jobs.  The work requires intensive use of the hands and arms, and includes exposure to vibrations.  In 2010 and 2011, during a hiring surge, Amsted offered employment to applicants who had the necessary skills and experience, but the offers were contingent on their passing a medical examination and other tests.  Id.  The medical examination aimed, in part, to determine applicants who were at higher risk of developing CTS, one of the risks of jobs that require intensive use of the hands and exposure to vibrations.  Amsted contracted with an outside medical company to conduct on-site medical exams, which included a medical history questionnaire, measuring vital signs, vision and hearing assessments, a physical examination, and an NCT.

Applicants whose NCT was “abnormal” were put on “medical hold pending further data” regardless of any other information obtained in the examination.  Id. at *4.  This was done because the medical testing company believed abnormal NCT tests indicated that an applicant was “right on the verge of” developing CTS and losing the use of his hand.  Id.  Amsted was aware that applicants were being placed on hold because of an abnormal NCT result and authorized this use of the NCT results.  Applicants who did not return with normal NCT results were not hired.  Amsted did not hire any applicants who did not test normal on an NCT.

The EEOC alleged that Amsted violated the ADA when it denied the Claimants employment on the basis of their disability rather than an individualized assessment.  Id. at *7.  The EEOC argued that an abnormal NCT result was an inappropriate basis for making employment decisions.  It further alleged that Amsted was not concerned with worker safety, but rather with reducing workers’ compensation costs.  Amsted challenged the EEOC’s ability to prove all elements of its ADA case, including that the Claimants were qualified because they did not pose a direct threat.  Id. at *9.  As such, both parties cross-moved for summary judgment. 

The Court’s Decision

The Court granted in part the EEOC’s motion for partial summary judgment.  With the exception of one Claimant, Amsted did not challenge whether the EEOC had sufficient evidence to prove the Claimants were disabled.  Id. at *10.  The Court rejected Amsted’s challenge relative to the lone Claimant, noting that because Amsted conceded it refused to hire the Claimant because it feared he posed a safety risk in light of his prior CTS diagnosis and corrective surgery, no reasonable jury could fail to find that it regarded him as disabled  Id. at *11.  Regarding the element that the Claimants be qualified, the Court opined that the relevant case law established that the qualification question focuses on the individual’s condition at the time of the defendant’s employment decision, regardless of what may happen to the individual in the future.  Id. at *15.

In addition, the Court addressed the adverse employment action element.  Id. at *18.  Amsted argued that the Claimants were not subject to an adverse employment action because they were not rejected for employment but were simply put on medical hold pending receipt of further medical information.  The EEOC argued that Amsted’s placement of Claimants on medical hold was an adverse employment action because it effectively foreclosed future employment as a chipper.  Agreeing with the EEOC, the Court held that “[t]he evidence show[ed] that the Claimants’ placement on medical hold due to an abnormal NCT result was an adverse employment action because it effectively precluded them from being hired.”  Id. at *19. 

Finally, the Court explained that the EEOC must show but-for causation in order to prevail.  Id. at *20.  Amsted argued that the EEOC could not establish a discriminatory intent because the company relied in good faith on medical judgments that the Claimants were unable to safely perform the essential functions of the chipper job or had certain medical restrictions.  The Court rejected this argument, holding that Amsted took the Claimants out of the applicant pool because of its perception that they were disabled.  Accordingly, the Court granted in part the EEOC’s motion for partial summary judgment.

Implications For Employers

In its Strategic Enforcement Plan for Fiscal Years 2017-2021, the EEOC identified eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring as one of its six enforcement priorities (as we blogged about here).  For employers in industries where an applicant’s medical background may be important, it is crucial for those employers to keep the EEOC’s strategic priorities in mind.  When employers make hiring decisions based on the potential for future injuries, such as the employer here, they significantly increase their likelihood of facing EEOC-initiated ADA litigation.  As such, employers should be exercise caution when implementing medical testing procedures for applicants, and ensure such procedures are lawfully conducted.

Readers can also find this post on our EEOC Countdown blog here.

 

Happy Holiday season to our loyal readers of the Workplace Class Action Blog!

Our elves are busy at work this holiday season in wrapping up our start-of-the-year kick-off publication – Seyfarth Shaw’s Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report.

We anticipate going to press in early January, and launching the 2018 Report to our readers from our Blog.

This will be our Fourteenth Annual Report, and the biggest yet with analysis of over 1,350 class certification rulings from federal and state courts in 2017.  The Report will be available for download as an E-Book too.

The Report is the sole compendium in the U.S. dedicated exclusively to workplace class action litigation, and has become the “go to” research and resource guide for businesses and their corporate counsel facing complex litigation. We were again honored this year with a review of our Report by Employment Practices Liability Consultant Magazine (“EPLiC”). Here is what EPLiC said: “The Report is a definitive ‘must-have’ for legal research and in-depth analysis of employment-related class action litigation.  Anyone who practices in this area, whether as an attorney, a business executive, a risk manager, an underwriter, a consultant, or a broker cannot afford to be without it. Importantly, the Report is the only publication of its kind in the United States. It is the sole compendium that analyzes workplace class actions from ‘A to Z.’”  You can read more about the review here.  Furthermore, EPLiC recognized our Report as the “state-of-the-art word” on workplace class action litigation.

The 2018 Report will analyze rulings from all state and federal courts – including private plaintiff class actions and collective actions, and government enforcement actions –  in the substantive areas of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. It also features chapters on EEOC pattern or practice rulings, state law class certification decisions, and non-workplace class action rulings that impact employers. The Report also analyzes the leading class action settlements for 2017 for employment discrimination, wage & hour, and ERISA class actions, as well as settlements of government enforcement actions, both with respect to monetary values and injunctive relief provisions.

Information on downloading your copy of the 2018 Report will be available on our blog in early January. Happy Holidays!