Class Actions Brief Blog

It is no secret that many businesses minimize risk by requiring arbitration of disputes on an individual basis. The exposure created by a single claim pales next to that presented by a class claim, asserted under Rule 23, on behalf of numerous individuals. To implement this mitigation strategy, businesses typically include in their agreements an arbitration provision, coupled with a waiver of the right to bring a class or collective action.

The United States Supreme Court has generally validated this approach. Even when the cost of asserting an individual statutory claim far ...

If you’re an Uber rider, you’re probably familiar with Uber’s requests that you rate your driver. It’s a five-star rating system. Five is the best. One is the worst.

As it turns out, those ratings are vitally important to Uber drivers. Uber requires its drivers to maintain a minimum star rating.

This post is about how that rating system prompted a class action on racial discrimination — and about what a recent decision in that case teaches about how to prove classwide discrimination.

In 2015, Uber drivers in San Diego had to maintain a rating of at least 4.6 stars. A San Diego Uber ...

Last Wednesday, the Supreme Court held in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, No. 17-988 (April 24, 2019) that an ambiguous agreement cannot authorize class arbitration. The 5-4 decision split along ideological lines, with Chief Justice Roberts writing for the Court’s conservative majority. Per Roberts’ opinion, the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requires both parties to an arbitration agreement to give their full consent to authorize class arbitration, a “markedly different” process than traditional individualized arbitration. In its 2010 decision in Stolt-Nielsen v ...

According to the Company website, “Piggly Wiggly has been bringing home the bacon for millions of American families for over 100 years.” But a putative class of former employees of Piggly Wiggly filed a class action complaint in the District of South Carolina, asserting various claims under ERISA pertaining to the Company’s employee stock ownership plan. The claims include allegations pertaining to excessive compensation, “gross mismanagement,” concealing of financial losses from participants, and various “insider dealings.” Spires v. Schools, No. 2:16-616 ...

Failure to give the requisite 60-days’ notice to a group of employees under the WARN Act seems like it implicates a quintessential common question for adjudication under Rule 23. But in Hutson v. CAH Acquisition Company 10, LLC, 1:15CV742 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 15, 2016), Defendant gamely tried to suggest that there were factual issues that must be resolved as to each plaintiff. Admittedly, the case was a bit more complicated than the typical WARN Act case – the closing of the employer’s facility was postponed, and there apparently was confusion about just what the employer explained to ...

Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, voting 6 – 2 to uphold a jury verdict in favor of employees in a donning and doffing action. The class of employees, certified under Iowa Wage and Hour law pursuant to Rule 23, and as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, worked in the kill, cut and retrim departments of a pork processing plant. They were required to use protective gear and complained that they weren’t paid for the time spent to put on and take off the necessary protection equipment. Because Tyson didn’t keep records ...

We have reported recently in this space on the certification of state wage and hour claims. Judge Gergel recently continued with this trend, certifying a class of Jamaican workers at the Kiawah Island Golf Resort who contend they weren’t paid enough by the Resort. See Moodie v. Kiawah Island Inn Co. LLC, No. 2:15-cv-1097 (D.S.C. Aug. 24, 2015). Defendants argued that the differences in class members were such that the court would have to certify six classes, but the Court rejected that notion, saying the argument stemmed from a “novel proposition that Plaintiffs must propose [a ...

Courts have understandably been reluctant to certify a class consisting of “persons who are injured by the defendant” or “individuals to whom the defendant is liable,” i.e., a class definition that depends on the outcome of the case. Such a “fail-safe” class is unfair to defendants:  if defendants win the case, there is no class that is bound by the result because the class consists solely of victors.

A West Virginia judge recently denied a former Dollar General employee her bid for class certification, finding the proposed class was fail-safe and therefore improper ...

In Johnson v. Amazon.com dedc LLC, No. 3:14-cv-01797 (D.S.C. May 2, 2014), seven South Carolina Amazon warehouse workers sued Amazon on behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees alleging unpaid overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) at Amazon’s fulfillment centers in West Columbia and Spartanburg. Plaintiffs allege that they should be compensated for time spent going through “intensive and time-consuming security screening” to enter and exit the fulfillment centers (Compl. ¶35) and for similar security procedures at the start ...

Family Dollar, a national discount store retailer based in Charlotte, was sued by a putative class of female store managers alleging gender discrimination in pay in the Western District of North Carolina. In January 2012, Judge Cogburn dismissed the class claims, holding that they weren’t viable under Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011). His ruling was consistent with plaintiffs’ own declaration earlier in the case: they said their claims were “virtually identical” to those in the Wal-Mart case after the Ninth Circuit’s favorable decision (but before ...