Class Action Defense Cases–Sher v. Raytheon: Florida Federal Court Grants Class Action Status To Class Action Complaint Alleging Toxic Tort Liability For Ground Contamination

Class Action Seeking Damages for Diminished Property Values resulting from Release of Chemicals causing Ground Contamination Warranted Class Action Treatment Florida Court Holds

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Raytheon alleging that the release of chemicals at a Facility owned by Raytheon caused ground contamination that diminished the property values. Sher v. Raytheon Co., 261 F.R.D. 651 (M.D. Fla. 2009) (Slip Opn., at 1-2, 13-14). According to the allegations underlying the class action complaint, “various industrial activities” were performed at the site which “caused chemicals…including TCE, vinyl chloride and 1, 4-dioxane, to leak into the soil and groundwater at the Facility.” Id., at 2 (footnotes omitted). The class action alleges that the chemicals leaked into the ground and “migrated beyond the boundaries of the Facility and into the surrounding neighborhood,” id., at 2-3. Plaintiffs claim that they were unaware of the ground contamination until a March 2008 news article and newscast. Id., at 4. The federal court explained, “In its current form, the proposed class area consists of over 1,000 property owners and 1,300 parcels of property…. The proposed class area is composed of ten sub-areas or neighborhoods…. There are seventeen different property types within the proposed class area, including various residential (single-family, apartments, condominiums); commercial (stores, shopping center); and institutional uses (schools, a church); as well as vacant land….” Id., at 5. The class action sought monetary damages “for the diminution in the value of their properties that the contamination caused and any restoration costs,” as well as injunctive relief to prevent further contamination. Id., at 13-14. Plaintiffs moved the district court to certify the litigation as a class action, id., at 1. Defense attorneys opposed class action treatment primarily on the ground that “common issues cannot predominate when the Court will have to make individualized inquiries as to causation and damages for each property owner.” Id., at 14. The defense also argued that “under Plaintiffs’ definition, every property owner would be included even if chemicals from the Facility cannot be detected in their groundwater.” Id. The district court granted class action treatment.

We do not here summarize the federal court’s discussion of the named plaintiffs or the various experts. See Sher, at 5-13. The district court began its analysis by noting that the definition of the class “is an overriding concern in environmental or mass toxic tort cases” and that “many courts treat ‘class definition’ as a threshold issue.” Id., at 17. This requirement necessitates that plaintiffs “‘distinguish[] members of the proposed class from the general public based upon’ the defendant’s alleged actions against them.” Id. (citations omitted). Plaintiffs argued that their proposed class definition was proper “because it includes a particular group (real property owners), that were harmed during a particular time frame (beginning on March 29, 2008), in a particular location (over Defendant’s groundwater plume) and in a particular way (groundwater contamination).” Id., at 18. Defense attorneys countered that “the geographic boundaries delineated on the Property Map arbitrarily identify a subset of the general public https://www.classactiondefenseblog.com/cgi-bin/mt.cgi?__mode=view&_type=entry&blog_id=1#rather than a distinct class of persons affected by Defendant’s alleged activities” and that the putative class subsumes within its sweep “every property owner in the proposed class area – including countless persons whose properties show no detection of chemicals from the Facility.” Id. The federal court concluded that the class definition was sufficiently definite. Id., at 18-20.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

ADA Class Action Defense Cases–Ault v. Walt Disney World: Florida Federal Court Dismisses ADA Class Action For Lack Of Standing Holding Class Action Did Not Seek “Access” But “Human Dignity” Through New Technology

Class Action Challenging Disney Prohibition Against use of Segways at Parks Warranted Dismissal for Lack of Standing Florida Federal Holds because Disney Afforded Named Plaintiffs “Access” to its Parks through Scooters, Wheelchairs, and 4-Wheel “Electronic Stand-Up Vehicles” (ESVs) but Barred Segways for Safety Reasons

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Walt Disney World alleging violations of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); specifically, the class action complaint alleged that Disney violated the ADA by refusing to allow disabled persons to use Segways within the park. Ault v. Walt Disney World Co., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (M.D. Fla. October 6, 2009) (Slip Opn., at 1, 3-5). According to the allegations underlying the class action complaint, plaintiffs are disabled individuals who prefer to use Segways for mobility “rather than a ‘traditional’ mobility device such as a wheelchair or scooter.” _Id._, at 3. Disney accommodates disabled guests, and provides wheelchairs and scooters, but for safety reasons has banned the use of two-wheeled devices such as Segways. _Id._ However, because it realized that some disabled guests would prefer to stand, it designed a 4-wheel “electronic stand-up vehicle” (ESV) that it makes available to guests. _Id._, at 4. The parties vigorously litigated the class action, and ultimately reached a proposed class action settlement that would permit Disney’s policy against Segways to remain but require Disney “to make a certain number of its ESVs available to disabled guests at its Parks.” _Id._, at 5. The district court conditionally certified the matter as a class action for settlement purposes and granted preliminary approval to the settlement, _id._, at 1. The federal court received almost 100 objections to the proposed settlement, including objections from various disability-rights groups, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Attorneys General of twenty-three States. _Id._, at 1-2. After conducting “an extensive two-day fairness hearing,” the federal court concluded that plaintiffs lacked standing to prosecute the action and, accordingly, vacated its prior order and dismissed the class action complaint without prejudice. _Id._, at 2.

The class action focuses on the use of Segways at Disney parks. The district court explained, “Although Disney has reviewed its policy against Segways annually, it has consistently concluded that Segway use may not be safe in its densely crowded Parks. For that reason, Disney’s ESV was built around essentially the same technology as its proprietary sit-down scooters and underwent similar safety testing.” Ault, at 4-5. Specifically, Disney designed its ESV to meet “the safety standards for power scooters established by the Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America.” Id., at 5 n.8. In examining the standing of the named plaintiffs, the court noted that one of them, who suffered from progressive Multiple Sclerosis, would “sometimes uses a Segway as her mobility device,” but her legs would get stiff and it was “difficult for her to even stand without needing to hold on to something,” id., at 6; accordingly, she only used her Segway about once a month, id., at 6 n.11, and previously used a traditional scooter during a multi-day visit to Disney parks, id., at 6. Another named plaintiff walked around the park during the first two days of her trip to Disney World, but used a scooter on the third day for a couple of hours. Id., at 7. The last named plaintiff testified that he is “physically able to use a wheelchair or scooter” but prefers his Segway “because no one looks at him and wonders what is ‘wrong’ with him,” id. The district court also summarized various objections to the class action settlement. See id., at 8-11.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases–County of Nassau v. Hotels.Com: Second Circuit Remands Class Action For Consideration In First Instance Of Propriety Of Class Action Treatment Is Appropriate

Class Action Alleging Failure to Online Hotel Room Reseller to Pay Proper Occupancy Taxes, Dismissed by District Court for Failure of County to Comply with Administrative Process for Assessing and Collecting Taxes, Remanded for District Court Consideration of Whether Class Action Certification is Appropriate Second Circuit Holds Plaintiff County of Nassau filed a putative class action against Hotels.Com alleging failure to pay the proper hotel occupancy taxes. County of Nassau v.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) Uncategorized

FDCPA Class Action Defense Cases–Hicks v. Client Services: Florida Federal Court Denies Motion To Decertify Class Action Holding De Minimis Recovery Does Not Defeat Rule 23(b)’s Superiority Requirement

Class Action Alleging Violations of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) Properly Certified as Class Action despite De Minimis Recovery for Class Members Florida Federal Court Holds

Plaintiff filed a class action against Client Services alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA); plaintiff moved to certify the litigation as a class action, and the district court agreed that class action treatment was warranted under Rule 23. Hicks v. Client Services, Inc., 257 F.R.D. 699, 700 (S.D.Fla. 2009). Defense attorneys moved to decertify the litigation as a class action, arguing that in light of the statutory cap on damages awardable under FDCPA class actions, the de minimis recovery awaiting class members defeated the “superiority” prong of class certification. Id. Specifically, the FDCPA caps damages in class actions to “the lesser of $500,000 or 1 per centum of the net worth of the debt collector.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(B). Defendant asserted that its net worth was only $15 million, and that the putative class contained more than 122,000 members: “Thus, should Plaintiff class prevail, the maximum recovery per class member would be $1.24.” Id. (footnote omitted). Plaintiff countered that “courts have not allowed the prospect of de minimis individual recovery to defeat certification of FDCPA classes.” Id. The district court denied the motion, determining that class action treatment was warranted.

The district court explained that, in analyzing the superiority requirement of Rule 23(b)(3), courts have recognized that [c]lass actions are particularly superior for cases where individual recovery would be small, because class actions ‘overcome the problem that small recoveries do not provide the incentive for any individual to bring a solo action prosecuting his or her rights.’” Hicks, at 700 (quoting Amchem Prods. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 617 (1997)). “A class action solves this problem by aggregating the relatively paltry potential recoveries into something worth someone’s (usually an attorney’s) labor.” Amchem, at 617. The court considered the cases cited by defendants for the proposition that a de minimis recovery may defeat class certification, see id., at 700-01. The court discussed also the cases cited by plaintiffs hold that de minims recovery does not defeat class certification of FDCPA claims. Id., at 701. The federal court observed, then, that “[t]here is authority supporting both Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s positions.” Id. It concluded, however, that the cases supporting plaintiff’s view were the more persuasive, id. The district court explained at page 701,

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions FDCPA Class Actions Uncategorized

Target Class Action Defense Cases–Muro v. Target: Seventh Circuit Affirms Denial Of Class Action Treatment Of TILA Class Action Holding Plaintiff Lack Standing To Appeal Denial Of Class Certification As She Settled Individual Claim

As Matter of First Impression, because Plaintiff Settled her Individual Claims Following Denial of Class Action Certification Motion of Class Action Alleging Violations of Truth in Lending Act (TILA), Plaintiff Lacked Standing to Appeal Propriety of District Court Order Denying Class Certification Seventh Circuit Holds

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against various Target entities alleging violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA); the class action complaint alleged that Target sent plaintiff an unsolicited Target Visa card in the mail in violation of TILA’s prohibition against sending credit cards in the absence of a request or application by the consumer. Muro v. Target Corp., ___ F.3d ___ (7th Cir. August 31, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1-2]. According to the allegations underlying the class action complaint, Target sent unsolicited Visa Cards, which may be used anywhere that accepts Visa cards, to holders of Target Guest Card, which may be used only at Target stores. _Id._, at 2 and n.2. Guest Card holders were given the option of activating the Visa cards, and if they elected to do so, then the corresponding Guest Card would be deactivated and any balance on the Guest Card would be transferred to the Visa card. _Id._, at 2-3. Plaintiff had a Guest Card account that she closed in 1999; plaintiff “received no further correspondence from Target for nearly five years” at which time she received the unsolicited Visa card. _Id._, at 2. Plaintiff did not activate the Visa card and did not incur any charges or fees in connection with the solicitation. _Id._ Nonetheless, plaintiff filed her class action complaint alleging TILA violations, _id._ Plaintiff moved the district court to certify the litigation as a class action and defense attorneys moved for summary judgment; the district court “granted summary judgment as to Target and denied class certification.” _Id._ The Seventh Circuit affirmed.

The Seventh Circuit began its analysis by noting that while TILA states “[n]o credit card shall be issued expect in response to a request or application therefor,” this provision “does not apply to the issuance of a credit card in renewal of, or in substitution for, an accepted credit card.” Muro, at 3-4 (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1642). According to the district court, any class members that had Guest Card accounts fell within the exception of credit cards issued in “renewal or substitution” thereof, id., at 4. The district court also had denied class action treatment because plaintiff’s claims were not typical of those of the class – “unlike most of the proposed class members, [plaintiff] had alleged that she had closed her Guest Card account.” Id., at 4-5. And while plaintiff could adequately represent a class defined as recipients of the unsolicited Visa cards that previously had closed their Guest Card accounts, the district court found that plaintiff had not demonstrated that such a class would be sufficiently numerous to warrant class action treatment. Id., at 5. Plaintiff then settled her individual claim but claimed to reserve the right to appeal the denial of her class action certification motion, id. The Circuit Court held that plaintiff had “no cognizable interest” in the class action certification issue because she accepted the offer of judgment, so the Court focused on the issue of whether she could nevertheless appeal the district court’s decision not to certify the proposed class. Id., at 5-6.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions RESPA/TILA Class Actions Uncategorized

FedEx Class Action Defense Cases–Babineau v. Federal Express: Eleventh Circuit Affirms Denial Of Class Action Treatment Of Putative Labor Law Class Action Claims Holding Rule 23(b)(3)’s Predominance Requirement Not Met

Labor Law Class Action Complaint did not Warrant Class Action Treatment because Individualized Inquiries would Predominate and because Rule 23(b)(1)(A)’s Requirements for Class Action were not Met given Monetary Relief Sought by Plaintiffs Eleventh Circuit Holds

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against their employer, Federal Express, alleging labor law violations; specifically, the class action complaint alleged that FedEx “failed to pay employees for ‘all hours worked.’” Babineau v. Federal Express Corp., ___ F.3d ___ (11th Cir. July 27, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 2]. According to the allegations underlying the class action complaint, “FedEx has engaged in a pervasive and long-standing policy of failing to pay hourly employees for all time worked.” _Id._ The class action claimed “FedEx breached their contracts by failing to pay for three categories of time worked: (1) the interval between an employee’s manual punch in time and his scheduled start time; (2) the interval between an employee’s scheduled end time and his manual punch out time; and (3) the time worked during unpaid breaks.” _Id._, at 3. Plaintiffs moved the district court to certify the litigation as a class action, _id._, at 2. Originally a class action was filed on behalf of a nationwide class asserting “substantially similar claims,” but the district court denied class action treatment in that case. _See Clausnitzer v. Federal Express Corp._, 248 F.R.D. 647 (S.D. Fla. 2008). This class action complaint was filed in “[an] attempt[] to address the defects identified in _Clausnitzer_ by limiting the scope of the class to Florida employees, adding a claim for quantum meruit, and altering the theory of their breach of contract claim.” _Babineau_, at 2-3. As defined, the class action seeks to represent a class that “includes couriers, courier/handlers, service agents, and any other nonexempt employees who are, or were, required during the class period to punch in and out on a manual time clock, but were paid only from their scheduled start time to their scheduled end time.” _Id._, at 3. The district court again denied class action treatment, holding class certification “was improper primarily because individualized factual inquiries into whether and how long each employee worked without compensation would swamp any issues that were common to the class.” _Id._ Plaintiffs appealed. The Eleventh Circuit explained at page 2, “The sole question before this Court is whether the district court abused its discretion in declining to certify the class. We hold that the district court acted within the bounds of its discretion and affirm its decision.”

The resolution of this case is very fact-specific, so the Eleventh Circuit spent considerable time on claims and facts supporting and contradicting those claims. See Babineau, at 3-11. We give only a brief summary. The Circuit Court noted that FedEx provides two manuals to its employees – a “People Manual” and an “Employee Handbook.” Id., at 4. Each manual states, “It is the policy of FedEx [] to compensate for all time worked in accordance with applicable state and federal law,” and the People Manual also provides that “[e]xcept for certain approved preliminary and post-liminary activities, no employee should perform work ‘off the clock’ for any reason, whether on their own initiative or at the request of management.” Id. The Eleventh Circuit also explained that FedEx tracks employee time three ways: “First, employees track their time by entering various codes corresponding to different work activities into a hand-held computerized tracking device (a ‘tracker’). Employees manually enter into the trackers their scheduled start times and end times as well as the times at which they start and finish a break…. Additionally, as a backup for the tracker data, employees manually write on a time card the time codes for each task, as well as the start and end time for that task. [¶] FedEx also requires employees to punch in and out on a manual punch clock before and after their shifts. Until 2007 the trackers did not automatically time stamp the employees’ entries, so an employee who was supposed to commence work at 8:00 a.m. but arrived for work at 8:05 a.m. could hide his tardiness by entering an 8:00 a.m. start time into the tracker. Thus, FedEx claims that the manual punch records were simply used to verify the integrity of time entries that employees entered into the trackers. FedEx paid its employees only for the time between the scheduled start and end times as entered into the trackers, which did not necessarily coincide with employees’ manual punch in and punch out times. The periods of time between the start/end times entered into the tracker and the punch in/out times are referred to as ‘gap periods.’” Id., at 5-6.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases–Garza v. Swift: Arizona Supreme Court Holds Court Of Appeals Lacked Jurisdiction To Hear Appeal From Trial Court Order Denying Class Action Certification Motion

Trial Court Order Denying Class Action Treatment not Appealable because not “Final Judgment” so Court of Appeals Erred in Exercising Appellate Jurisdiction to Review Order Denying Class Action Certification Arizona Supreme Court Holds Plaintiff filed a putative class action in Arizona state court against his former employer, Swift Transportation, a trucking company, alleging labor law violations; specifically, the class action complaint alleged that Swift paid its truck drivers per “dispatched mile” but “systematically underestimated mileage and, by doing so, routinely underpaid its drivers.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

FedEx Class Action Defense Cases–In re FedEx Ground: Indiana Federal Court Grants Class Action Certification Motions As To Certain State Labor Law Class Action Claims And Denies Class Action Treatment As To Five State Lawsuits

Labor Law Class Actions, Coordinated for Pretrial Purposes by Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Warranted Class Action Treatment under Certain State Laws but failed to Satisfy Prerequisites for Class Action Treatment under Other State Laws Indiana Federal Court Holds

Numerous class action lawsuits were filed in various states against Federal Express alleging labor law violations in that FedEx allegedly failed to pay certain delivery drivers overtime and other wages; ultimately, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation coordinated the class actions for pretrial purposes in the Northern District of Indiana. In re FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., Employment Practices Litig., ___ F.3d ___ (N.D.Ind. July 27, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1 _et seq._]. In October 2007 and March 2008, the district court resolved “the first of three wages” of class action certification motions involving putative class actions that had been filed in 28 states. _Id._, at 1 (and see Note, below). Plaintiffs in 14 of the remaining class actions, filed in at least 11 different states, moved the district court to certify their lawsuits as class actions (or as collective actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)), _id._, at 1-2. The district court explained that in considering whether to grant class action treatment with respect to the states at issue, “Analysis focuses primarily on whether the substantive law governing the motion allows resolution, without extrinsic evidence, of whether the Operating Agreement and policies applicable to the entire class create an employment relationship, and whether a would-be employer’s conduct can convert an employment relationship (as defined in the employment contract) into an independent contractor relationship.” _Id._, at 2.

Given the length of the district court’s opinion, and the detailed analysis involved in considering each state’s laws, we provide here only the court’s conclusions. First, the district court granted the motion by Arizona plaintiffs to certify their lawsuit as a class action, see In re FedEx, at 4-5. Second, the court denied the motion by Colorado plaintiffs to certify their lawsuit as a class action, id., at 7. Third, the court denied the motion by Connecticut plaintiffs to certify their lawsuit as a class action, id., at 9. Fourth, the court denied the motion by certain plaintiffs for conditional certification of a collective action under the FLSA, id., at 16. Fifth, the court granted the motion by Georgia plaintiffs to certify their lawsuit as a class action, id., at 24. Sixth, the court granted the motion by Louisiana plaintiffs to certify their lawsuit as a class action with respect to certain claims for relief, but denied the motion with respect to other claims for relief, id., at 39-40. Seventh, the court denied the motion by certain plaintiffs to certify as a class action their lawsuit under the Motor Carrier Safety Act, id., at 43-44. Eighth, the court granted the motion by Nevada plaintiffs to certify their lawsuit as a class action with respect to a statutory claim brought under Nev. Rev. Stat. Ch. 608, but otherwise denied the motion with respect to all other claims for relief, id., at 50. Ninth, the court granted the motion by North Carolina plaintiffs to certify their lawsuit as a class action, id., at 52. Tenth, the court granted the motion by Ohio plaintiffs to certify their lawsuit as a class action, id., at 56. Eleventh, the court granted the motion by Oregon plaintiffs to certify their lawsuit as a class action with respect to all claims for relief except for the rescission claim, id., at 67. Twelfth, the court denied the motion by Vermont plaintiffs to certify their lawsuit as a class action, id., at 78.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases–Fener v. Belo: Fifth Circuit Court Affirms Denial Of Class Action Treatment In Securities Fraud Class Action Holding Plaintiffs Failed To Establish Loss Causation

Class Action Complaint Alleging Securities Fraud Properly Denied Class Action Treatment because Plaintiffs Failed to Establish that Decline in Stock Price was Connected to Disclosure of Alleged Fraud rather than Long-Term Industry Trends Fifth Circuit Holds

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Belo Corporation and others alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; specifically, the class action complaint alleged that Belo – a media company that inter alia published the Dallas Morning News (DMN), which accounted for 30% of Belo’s revenue – “engaged in a fraudulent scheme designed to inflate DMN’s circulation artificially.” Fener v. Belo Corp., ___ F.3d ___ (5th Cir. August 12, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1-2]. According to the allegations underlying the class action complaint, Belo “allegedly paid bonuses for achieving circulation targets, rigged audits of DMN’s circulation, and implemented a no-return policy that eliminated any incentive for distributors to return unsold newspapers.” _Id._, at 2. These acts “artificially increased recorded circulation, which led to higher advertising revenues for DMN and larger profits for Belo” because 90% of DMN’s revenue came from advertising. _Id._ Belo eventually disclosed these facts in a press release, and the company’s stock price dropped substantially, _id._, at 2-3. The class action complaint followed, and plaintiffs moved the district court to certify the litigation as a class action. _Id._, at 3. Defense attorneys opposed class action treatment, relying on an expert opinion that “plaintiffs could not show that the fraudulent disclosure in the press release was the primary cause of the stock price decline.” _Id._, at 3-4. Plaintiffs countered with an expert opinion that the drop in stock price was “entirely or almost entirely attributable to the revelation of the relevant truth in this case.” _Id._, at 4. The district court denied class action treatment and plaintiffs appealed. _Id._ The Fifth Circuit affirmed.

After outlining the standard of review and the elements (including loss causation) required to prove a securities fraud case, see Fener, at 4-7, the Circuit Court noted that a district court may properly examine loss causation as part of a class action certification determination, id., at 7. The issue before the Court was “whether these plaintiffs have presented enough information to show loss causation under Rule 23.” Id. While plaintiffs submitted 100 pages in support of their class certification motion, defendants introduced expert testimony that Belo’s press release contained three distinct parts: “DMN’s circulation decrease resulted from (1) fraudulent overstatements; (2) changes in DMN’s methodology; and (3) industry-wide decline in newspaper circulation” and concluded – based on an examination of 132 analyst reports – that Belo’s stock dropped primarily because of “the non-fraudulent disclosures instead of the fraudulent one.” Id., at 8-9. The Fifth Circuit stated that it was important to resolve whether the press release should be viewed as “one complete disclosure or three separate ones,” id., at 9. Based on the “plain language” of the press release, the Circuit Court concluded that it was three separate disclosures. Id., at 10. Accordingly, “the release divides the news into fraudulent and non-fraudulent information related to possible future circulation declines.” Id.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions PSLRA/SLUSA Class Actions Uncategorized

UPS Class Action Defense Cases–Hohider v. United Parcel Service Express: Third Circuit Reverses Class Action Certification Of ADA Class Action Holding District Court Abused Discretion In Granting Certification

District Court Order Granting Certification Of ADA Class Action under Rule 23(b)(2) Warranted Reversal because District Court Abused Discretion in Overlooking Individualized Inquiries Inherent in Class Action Claims and because Monetary Relief was not Merely Incidental to Class Action Complaint Third Circuit Holds

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against United Parcel Service “alleging UPS has adopted and implemented companywide employment policies that are unlawfully discriminatory under the [Americans with Disabilities Act] ADA.” Hohider v. United Parcel Service, Inc., ___ F.3d ___ (3d Cir. July 23, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 6]. A separate class action was filed against UPS that was ultimately consolidated for all purposes with the initial action. _Id._, at 7. In broad terms, “Plaintiffs’ claims of unlawful discrimination focus on UPS’s alleged treatment of employees who attempt to return to work at UPS after having to take leave for medical reasons.” _Id._ According to the allegations underlying the class action, “UPS, as a matter of companywide policy, refuses to offer any accommodation to employees seeking to return to work with medical restrictions, effectively precluding them from resuming employment at UPS in any capacity because of their impaired condition.” _Id._, at 8. Plaintiffs moved the district court to certify the litigation as a nationwide class action, _id._, at 6-7, 10. In analyzing plaintiffs’ motion, the district court concluded that the proper “framework for analyzing a Title VII pattern-or-practice claim” in “a private-party class action brought under the ADA” was that set forth in _Franks v. Bowman Transp. Co._, 424 U.S. 747 (1976), _Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States_, 431 U.S. 324 (1977), and _Cooper v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond_, 467 U.S. 867 (1984). _Id._, at 29. The district court concluded that plaintiffs satisfied the requirements for class action certification under Rule 23(b)(2), _id._, at 11-12. UPS appealed, and in an 86-page opinion the Third Circuit reversed, _id._

The Circuit Court noted that the district court recognized the difficulties in allowing the litigation to proceed as a class action. For example, the district court “recognized that, in the present case, some of these ‘individual elements of a reasonable accommodation claim’ are not suitable for class treatment, as their resolution would require inquiries too individualized and divergent with respect to this class to meet the requirements of Rule 23.” Hohider, at 34. The court found, however, that “these individualized inquiries could be delayed until the second, ‘remedial’ stage” and so did not preclude class certification for the “‘liability’ stage,” which required “only proof of the existence of the alleged policies as UPS’s ‘standard operating procedure.’” Id. In the district court’s words, “It is sufficient in order to certify a class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) for the court to find that either UPS has acted on grounds generally applicable to the class by engaging in the alleged de facto 100% healed policy or by not engaging in the alleged de facto 100% healed policy; by implementing its formal ADA compliance procedures in violation of the ADA, or by implementing them in compliance with it; or by creating job classifications that are designed without regard to essential job functions to preclude anyone from returning to work who could not lift seventy pounds, or by creating job classifications that are designed with regard to essential job functions.” Id., at 34-35. The Third Circuit found that the district court misconstrued the Teamsters framework, and that “[t]o the extent the District Court relied upon the Teamsters method of proof to reach a certification decision incompatible with the substantive requirements of the ADA, it abused its discretion.” Id., at 42. The Third Circuit held at page 42, “Having reviewed plaintiffs’ claims in light of the substantive requirements of the ADA, we find those claims cannot be adjudicated within the parameters of Rule 23 such that a determination of classwide liability and relief can be reached. Rather, establishing the unlawful discrimination alleged by plaintiffs would require determining whether class members are ‘qualified’ under the ADA, an assessment that encompasses inquiries acknowledged by the District Court to be too individualized and divergent with respect to this class to warrant certification under Rule 23(a) and (b)(2).” Put simply, “the Teamsters framework cannot, by its own force, cure this flaw in the class.” Hohider, at 43. “Accordingly, the court’s grant of class certification was an abuse of discretion.” Id.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized