(N.D. Ala. Mar. 18, 2024). The plaintiff, a truck driver, filed a class action alleging that the defendant supplied uniforms to company truck drivers free of charge as a benefit of employment, but that the uniforms were designed for and properly fit only male truck drivers in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Id. at *1. The defendant moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), and the court granted the motion. The plaintiff specifically alleged that the defendant historically hired a majority of male truck drivers and that she was one of only 200 female truck drivers nationwide. The defendant contracted with Cintas, Aramark, and Unifirst to supply uniforms for Walmart truck drivers, which consist of pants, a shirt, and a jacket. The plaintiff contended that the uniforms did not fit females and that therefore, she and other female drivers had to buy their own pants and pay to launder them. The plaintiff asserted that this uniform policy led to a disparate impact on females amounting to sex discrimination. The defendant argued that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment because she did not allege that she and other female truck drivers were subjected to an adverse employment action. The court explained that when an employment benefit is implemented in a way that effectively produces a pay differential for members of a protected class, Title VII prohibits the practice. Id. at *7. The court stated that accepting the plaintiff’s allegations as true, because of their sex, the defendant deprived female truck drivers of an employment benefit that male truck drivers receive, and established that the defendant subjected them to disparate treatment discrimination. The court however, reasoned that in order to be actionable, the defendant’s uniform policy must cause a significant discrepancy in benefits or income, and the plaintiff failed to allege the total amount she had to pay to buy and launder women’s uniform pants. The court therefore could not opine whether the expenses incurred by female truck drivers were de minimus . Accordingly, the court granted the motion to dismiss, and directed the plaintiff to file an amended complaint containing information regarding the incurred costs associated with buying and laundering pants. The court in Doe, et al. v. New York University , 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97269 (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2024), was quick to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint where the alleged injury in fact had not yet occurred. The plaintiff, a white male first-year law student at NYU, filed a lawsuit challenging the University’s Law Review selection process. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that the Law Review gave preference to women and minority students in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. At the time the complaint was filed, the plaintiff planned to apply for membership on the Law Review in the summer of 2024, but asserted that he would “be subject to race and race and sex discrimination” and “denied an equal opportunity to compete for membership.” Id. at *4. The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and, shortly thereafter, the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The court, in granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, determined that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring suit because he had not yet applied to the Law Review and been denied, and because his allegations of discrimination in the selection process were purely speculative. The court also addressed the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, finding the Law Review’s membership-selection process to be “facially neutral.” The court noted that the plaintiff offered no factual allegations in support of his assertion that the Law Review gave preferential treatment to select minority groups. Additionally, the court explained that the Law Review’s practices that were lawful prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College , 600 U.S. 181 (2023), did not “give rise to a plausible inference of discrimination today,” particularly in light of the fact that the current policy did not identify a specific type of applicant diversity. Id. at *16. Finally, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against NYU because the complaint lacked any allegations regarding intentional discrimination by the University, as the Law Review is a student-run organization. In sum, the court roundly rejected the plaintiff’s allegations, granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, and denied the plaintiff’s motion for class certification. In Liu, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 15224 (9th Cir. June 24, 2024), the plaintiff, a driver with Uber, filed a class action alleging that the defendant’s use of a star rating system to terminate drivers discriminated against non-white drivers, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The district court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. Regarding the plaintiff’s disparate impact claim, the Ninth Circuit determined that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege a causal relationship between the star rating system and a significant disparate impact on non-white drivers. The plaintiff offered an article that conducted a survey among drivers in support of his allegations. The Ninth Circuit stated that the survey lacked a proper methodology and failed to accurately compare termination rates based on star ratings across different racial groups. The Court of Appeals also ruled that the plaintiff’s
9
© Duane Morris LLP 2025
Duane Morris Discrimination Class Action Review – 2025
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online