Articles Discussing General Issues In Employment Law Class Actions

“Incentive” or “service” awards to lead plaintiffs in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (Rule 23) class actions are unlawful, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has ruled in a suit brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that “incentive” or “service” awards to lead plaintiffs in Rule 23 class actions are unlawful. It is the first circuit court of appeals to expressly invalidate such awards as a matter of law. (Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC, No. 18-12344, September 17,

Employers continue to grapple with an ongoing, unprecedented public health crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and its after-effects, which have profoundly disrupted the nation’s economy and U.S. workplaces.

Check out our Winter 2020 Class Action Trends Report.  Our quarterly report discusses new developments in class action litigation and offers strategic guidance and tactical tips on how to defend such claims.  This issue covers using data analytics.  Read it here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has denied en banc review of a ruling that created a new framework for when employees who have entered into arbitration agreements receive collective action notices.

Earlier this year, in a case of first impression, the Seventh Circuit developed a required

On January 31, 2020, the district court in Chamber of Commerce of the United States, et al. v. Becerra, et al., E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:19-cv-2456, granted the request for a preliminary injunction enjoining the State of California (the State) from enforcing Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51) against arbitration agreements governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). A week later, on February 7, 2020, the court issued its written order detailing the court’s reasoning for granting the preliminary injunction.

On Christmas Eve, the Third Circuit issued a decision restricting certification of wage/hour classes for off-the-clock cases and increasing the threshold for other wage/hour matters. See Ferreras v. American Airlines, Inc. (Dec. 24, 2019). While this decision may reduce the number of wage/hour class actions certified in the Third Circuit (which covers Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the Virgin Islands), it is predicted to cause an increase in the number of wage/hour class action filings in New Jersey state courts. As discussed in our previous legal alert, the recently enacted New Jersey Wage Theft Act by itself will undoubtedly spark an increase in New Jersey state court filings because of the significant increase in damages and lower burden of proof compared to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Third Circuit’s decision will likely result in even more state court wage/hour class action filings.

Reinforcing the burden on any putative class to satisfy all of the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed the district court’s order denying the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in an employment discrimination action. Moussouris v. Microsoft Corp., No. 18-35791 (9th Cir. Dec. 24, 2019).

Our quarterly report discusses new developments in class action litigation and offers strategic guidance and tactical tips on how to defend such claims. This issue covers the following topics:

Our quarterly report takes a look back at the most significant class action developments over the last year, including litigation trends, court decisions, and legislative and regulatory changes that are certain to invite class litigation.

The fight over the scope of the “ABC test” for determining the status of workers under California state law continues unabated. A series of court filings last week suggests that state and local officials may be gearing up to aggressively enforce AB 5, the law that codified and expanded the application of the ABC test in the Golden State.

Since October 24, 2019, blind and vision-impaired individuals have filed more than ninety lawsuits claiming that the public accommodations provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (Title III) and its state and local equivalents require retailers and restaurants that offer gift cards to offer those cards in Braille.

Our quarterly report discusses new developments in class action litigation and offers strategic guidance and tactical tips on how to defend such claims.

While notices pursuant to the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (“COBRA”) are viewed as fairly standard, some plaintiffs’ counsel have recently zoomed in on the type of information included in these notices. Recently in Florida, three separate class action lawsuits alleged that the employer’s COBRA notice did not comply with the Department of Labor regulation.

A federal judge in Kentucky recently ruled that anecdotal accounts alone cannot support a class claim of discrimination without “substantial statistical evidence of company-wide discrimination.” Freeman v. Delta Air Lines, No. 2:15-cv-160 (WOB-CJS) (E.D. Ky. June 14, 2019).