failed to show plausible direct or circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent, and failed to allege facts showing that plaintiffs were qualified for the mortgage products they sought. Id. at *20. Therefore, the court dismissed those claims. Id. In analyzing the disparate impact claims, the court ruled that the suit’s nine remaining plaintiffs sufficiently pled that statistical disparities revealed a statistical impact among non-white loan applicants and that Navy Federal’s underwriting process may have caused these inconsistencies. Id. at *22. The court opined that, during discovery, if the plaintiffs can link Navy Federal’s underwriting process to the precise disparities and adverse consequences experienced by the borrowers — taking into consideration their individualized application criteria — then the court may revisit whether the claims can survive summary judgment. Id. For these reasons, the court dismissed the disparate treatment claims, and allowed the disparate impact claims to proceed as well as plaintiffs’ claim for declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201. In an even more involved twist of proceedings, the court in Colak, et al. v. Brooklyn Roasting Works, LLC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64241 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2024), did not even wait for motion practice. Here, the plaintiff, a blind individual, filed a class action alleging that he was subjected to discrimination on the basis of his disability when he attempted to make a purchase on the defendant’s website that was not assessable to blind individuals. As a threshold question, the court openly pondered whether the plaintiff had Article III standing. The court noted that the Second Circuit stated in Calcano v. Swarovski North America Ltd ., 36 F.4th 68 (2d Cir. 2022), that an injury- in-fact for purposes of standing is established where “it [i]s reasonable to infer, based on the past frequency of plaintiffs visits and the proximity of defendants’ businesses to plaintiff’s home, that plaintiff intended to return to the subject location.” Id. at *1. The court thereby determined that the plaintiff’s conclusory allegations that he intended to return to the defendant’s website, without explaining why, were insufficient to establish standing. Accordingly, the court ordered the plaintiff to show cause as to why dismissal for lack of standing should not be recommended in light of the absence of any nonconclusory allegations as to why the plaintiff intended to return to the defendant’s website. Id. at *2. The plaintiffs in Cosme, et al. v. Patina Orlando, LLC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127656 (M.D. Fla. July 19, 2024), were not allowed to move forward with a proposed class action alleging race and national origin discrimination, underscoring the high evidentiary bar that plaintiffs must meet when seeking class certification in discrimination cases. The plaintiffs, a group of servers at restaurants managed by the Patina Orlando within the Italy Pavilion at Epcot, operated by Disney, filed a class action alleging that the defendants terminated their employment on the basis of their race and national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The plaintiffs claimed that Disney directed Patina to replace them with servers holding Italian passports on J-1 or Q-1 visas, as part of a cultural exchange program. The plaintiffs argued that this replacement policy was discriminatory, as they were neither Italian by race nor perceived as such by the defendant. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted. At the outset, the court noted that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or that they were treated differently from other similarly-situated employees. Id. at *6. The court determined that the plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient evidence to form a claim for racial discrimination because they did not establish that their race was the reason for their termination. Additionally, the court reasoned that the plaintiffs’ national origin claims failed because the plaintiffs did not identify their national origin in the complaint. Id. at *7. The court therefore granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint to include a claim for disparate impact, alleging that the defendants’ requirement for employees to be culturally authentic caused a negative impact on non-Italians. Id. at *9. The defendants opposed amendment, arguing it was futile and would not address the deficiencies in the plaintiffs’ complaint. Id. at *10. The court agreed with the defendants and ruled that the amendment would not overcome the deficiencies of the prior complaint. As courts tend to do, 2024 saw a fair amount of partial dismissals at the class action level. In Paulino-Santos, et al. v. Metropolitan Transit Authority, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58179 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2024), the plaintiff argued that the Metropolitan Transit Authority’s (MTA) paratransit system failed to provide comparable service to that of non-disabled users. The plaintiffs filed a class action bringing claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). The plaintiffs alleged that the MTA’s Access-A-Ride (AAR) paratransit system, serving about 173,000 users, did not provide comparable service to individuals with disabilities compared to the fixed-route transit system used by people without disabilities. The plaintiffs argue that AAR’s service is inadequate due to four main issues, including: (i) a next-day policy requiring reservations to be made a day in advance; (ii) a one-
11
© Duane Morris LLP 2025
Duane Morris Discrimination Class Action Review – 2025
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online