In granting the motion for certification, the court held that Plaintiff Raines met all the prerequisites under Rule 23(a), but that Plaintiff Figg failed to satisfy the typicality requirement because he was not an applicant for a paid position and therefore did not attain employee status under the FEHA. Id. at *8. In its subsequent evaluation of the proposed class under Rule 23(b)(3), the court concluded that the common issues predominated across the class, determining that: (i) the defendant administered the PPEs on behalf of and at the direction of employers; (ii) all class members received the same HHQ from the defendant regardless of the duties or functions of the job conditionality offered; and (iii) at least one question on the HHQ was not relevant to any job. Id. at *14-15. Given such evidence, the court concluded that predominating issues of whether the defendant acted on behalf of referring employers and engaged in FEHA-related activities by administering a medical questionnaire could be adjudicated on a class-wide basis. Id. at *15. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion for class certification in Pearson, et al. v. Tyson Foods , Case No. 23-CV- 1080 (E.D. Ark. Oct. 29, 2024). The plaintiff filed a class action alleging that the defendant violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by not providing her with her requested religious accommodation following remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23, and the court denied the motion. The defendant initially permitted the plaintiff to work remotely from home during the pandemic. In August of 2021, the defendant announced a policy requiring all workers to receive the COVID-19 vaccination, unless the employee requested an exemption due to a sincerely held religious belief. The defendant’s policy provided accommodations for these employees including authorizing remote work, job transfers, or by providing unpaid leave under its LOA+ program. Id. at 1. The plaintiff applied for a religious exemption, and the defendant granted the request. After considering the plaintiff’s job duties, it offered to place her on unpaid leave, and the plaintiff accepted the offer. The plaintiff’s employment subsequently ended in December of 2022. The plaintiff sought certification of a class or current and former employees who worked remotely before the defendant implemented the vaccination requirement, requested a religious accommodation to continue working remotely, and who were placed on an extended leave of absence. Id. at 2. The court found that the plaintiff’s class failed to meet the commonality and numerosity requirements of Rule 23(a) and the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b). The court found that questions regarding whether the defendant’s accommodation was reasonable and whether it was unduly burdensome to the defendant for the employee to work remotely would be highly fact intensive and would depend on the responsibilities of each individual employee. The court also stated that the plaintiff failed to establish the number of employees in her proposed class with any proof. The court concluded that common questions did not predominate as all the common questions proposed would require individual analysis to resolve. The court thereby denied the plaintiff’s motion for class certification. On the other hand, the numerosity requirement can be challenging for plaintiffs to meet. In Burns, et al. v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68283 (E.D. Penn. Apr. 15, 2024), a group of Black and Hispanic families who visited Sesame Place Philadelphia, alleged that the park subjected them to discrimination on the basis of their race. The plaintiffs claimed that park employees, particularly those portraying Sesame Street characters, ignored their children but freely interacted with white children. The families also asserted that they were denied access to rides despite meeting applicable requirements and they were delayed in obtaining service in restaurants as compared to white families. The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent future discrimination against park attendees. Specifically, the plaintiffs sought injunctive relief measures, including revising anti-discrimination policies, implementing anti- discrimination training for employees, and appointing an Injunctive Relief Manager to oversee compliance with these measures. The court denied the motion. The court noted that the plaintiffs’ claims were based on alleged incidents of discrimination involving interactions with Sesame Street characters, as well as broader systemic issues regarding employee hiring and training. However, despite evidence of racial bias in the surrounding community and complaints received by the park, the court found that the proposed class definition lacked specificity and failed to adequately address the scope of the alleged discrimination. The court opined that although the families met some requirements for class certification, they failed to satisfy the numerosity requirement and that individualized issues made class-wide resolution impractical. Additionally, the court refused to certify a single issue regarding the park’s handling of racial biases, stating it would not resolve the essential questions of a negligence claim. Accordingly, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Employers commonly challenge the numerosity or commonality requirements by attacking affidavits propagated
3
© Duane Morris LLP 2025
Duane Morris Discrimination Class Action Review – 2025
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online