Duane Morris Discrimination Class Action Review – 2024

large-scale employment discrimination class and collective action. In this case, the plaintiffs, on behalf of the members of a putative collective action of former Spirit Airlines workers, alleged that the defendant airline implemented a reduction in force (RIF) after which the defendant “excluded virtually all plaintiffs from being hired by placing previously laid-off worker applications in a pool that precluded the applicants from being considered.” Id. at *11. In line with these allegations, the plaintiffs’ statistical expert found that “applicants 40 and over had only 76% the odds of a successful screening as under 40 applicants.” The court found that, while the defendant ’ s hiring practice unquestionably disadvantaged applicants who were previously laid off by the company, the practice was “obviously facially neutral” and “applied to all [former employees of the defendant] who were terminated in the RIF, young and old alike” Id. at *141. The court aptly summarized its reasoning by stating that the defendant ’ s “adoption of an age-neutral policy prior to the contemplation of the RIF, which was applied to all former . . . employees who left the company for whatever reason, and which allegedly had an adverse impact on older workers only because they were let go in the RIF in a somewhat greater proportion than younger workers, does not reasonably suggest that Spirit had a policy and practice of intentional age discrimination in hiring.” Id. at *141-42. Based on finding that the plaintiffs’ statistical analysis and other evidence failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the court granted the defendant ’ s motion for partial summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ collective ADEA claims (while leaving unaddressed the named plaintiff ’ s individual age discrimination claim that remained pending). Id. at *142-43. Rule 56 commonly serves as an employer ’ s “last stand” against class action litigation. If unsuccessful, businesses find themselves staring down the barrel of potentially enormous recoveries, to say nothing of the expenses they are destined to incur in preparation for frequently lengthy trials. These risks and the accompanying uncertainty of trial often force defendants into expensive settlements, even where the merits of their defense remain strong. As such, motions for summary judgment remain a defendant ’ s best opportunity to dispose of the litigation in a targeted, cheap(er), and final way. 7. Rulings On Decertification Motions Discrimination class actions in 2023 also saw many decertification motions. One notable example was Pritchard, et al. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Of Illinois , Case No. 20-CV-6145 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 5, 2023), where the plaintiffs, a transgender male and his mother, a transgender female, filed a class action alleging that the defendant violated the anti-discrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act by excluding gender affirming care from self-funded healthcare plans governed by the ERISA. The court previously had granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23. The defendant filed a motion to decertify the class and the plaintiffs moved for class-wide relief. The court ultimately denied the motion for decertification, but ruled that the class definition should be amended. The court ordered oral argument to address whether the class should be split into two classes, i.e., one that is entitled to prospective relief only (“are or will be”) and a second class that is entitled to retrospective relief (“have been”). Id . at 2. The court further requested that the parties to address whether the classes should be limited to claimants who were denied benefits in writing. Id . The defendant did not object to the changes of the class definition, and the plaintiff requested that the “in writing” requirement should not be included. Id . As a result, the court amended the class definition to include all individuals who: (i) have been, are, or will be participants or beneficiaries in a self-funded “group health plan” administrated by the defendant and contained an exclusion of gender-affirming healthcare services; (ii) were denied pre-authorization or coverage of treatment based on the exclusion; and (iii) are or will be denied pre-authorization or coverage based on the exclusion. Id . at 4. Finally, the court issued a second ruling on the decertification motion in Pritchard, et al. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Of Illinois , Case No. 20-CV-6145 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 12, 2023). The court further elaborated in denying the decertification motion that the class had sufficiently common claims, which defeated

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