Duane Morris Discrimination Class Action Review – 2024

and two baseball coaches for creating and condoning a sexualized environment over decades. To trim the complaint down from the three proposed classes, as well as prune the litany of state and federal laws supporting the charges, the defendants moved to dismiss certain allegations based on various procedural failures. The court was receptive to several of the defendants’ arguments, and granted the motion to dismiss claims against the NCAA, headquartered in Indiana, for lack of personal jurisdiction; dismissing claims brought on behalf of older players whose claims expired under the statute of limitations; dismissing the retaliation claims, which failed to allege any protected activity; and, finally, dismissing claims brought under state law alleging the school ’ s written sexual harassment policy was deficient. Still, the defendants’ victory was only partial, as the court allowed the plaintiffs to proceed with their remaining discrimination, negligence, and ratification claims. 6. Rulings Granting Motions For Summary Judgment After exchanging documents, deposing witnesses, and fleshing out the material facts of the dispute, defendants commonly seek to dispose of litigation by moving for summary judgment. Under a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment, the argument to the court is relatively straightforward, i.e ., that no reasonable juror could find in the plaintiff ’ s favor. If successful, the Rule 56 movant can avoid the timely and expensive costs incurred with proceeding to trial, while also receiving a final (but appealable) judgment absolving them of wrongdoing. Corley, et al. v. CRST Expedited, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4847 (N.D. Iowa Jan. 11, 2023), is an example of how a well-crafted summary judgment brief spelled the end of a purported class action. The plaintiffs, a group of female delivery drivers, alleged their employer maintained a retaliatory practice of underpaying female drivers who complained of sexual harassment. Under the policy, drivers who complained of sexual harassment against their co-drivers were “removed from the situation” until a new co- driver could be assigned to them. Id. at *4. During that time, however, the drivers lost out on any pay they would otherwise receive had they continued with their original route, which indirectly retaliated against employees for lodging complaints in the first place. To remedy that pay loss, defendants provided for “layover pay,” but, according to the complaint, did not disclose its availability, thereby undermining the effect it was designed to have. Id. The plaintiffs argued a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the original policy and the under-publicized layover pay constituted retaliation, which was sufficient to defeat summary judgment. The court, however, was not convinced that concealing the availability of layover pay demonstrated retaliatory intent, particularly where the company ’ s stated justification for doing so (to deter frivolous complaints) was not objectively unreasonable. Because it concluded that no genuine issue of material fact existed, the court granted summary judgment in defendants’ favor. Kinzer, et al. v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11311 (D. Mar. Jan. 23, 2023), is another example. The plaintiffs, on behalf of a class of former grocery store employees, filed discrimination and retaliation claims after being terminated for wearing “Black Lives Matter” masks. The grocery store giant defended its decisions, explaining the masks did not comply with its dress code policy, resulting in the employees being dismissed, and ultimately accruing enough absences to trigger termination. The plaintiffs challenged this reasoning as pretextual, arguing these policies were not uniformly carried out and that the defendants deviated from their normal termination procedures by involving C-suite level executives. The court disagreed. While acknowledging that top brass executives were not typically tuned into day-to-day employee infractions, the court did not find this level of involvement unusual enough to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the terminations. Moreover, while the plaintiffs contended they were treated more harshly than other dress code violators, the complaint did not identify any similarly-situated employee. Indeed, the court opined that the evidence showed the company uniformly enforced its policy beginning in 2020. Having failed to carry their burden to establish the elements of their discrimination, the plaintiffs were left defenseless to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which the court granted in its entirety. Raymond, et al. v. Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. , 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85832 (D. Kan. May 16, 2023), is another case in which a corporate defendant obtained a successful summary judgment result in a

Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online