part. The plaintiffs’ procedural due process claim alleged that their termination proceedings were a “sham,” by depriving the plaintiffs of their constitutionally protected property interest in their employment. Id. at *15. The court determined that the plaintiffs would be entitled to relief if they could demonstrate that the defendants decided to terminate their employment before their pre-termination hearings and could not have been influenced by anything the plaintiffs may have said during the hearings. The court thereby denied the motion to dismiss the due process claims. Next, in addressing the plaintiffs’ Free Exercise claims, the court determined that the plaintiffs could only maintain an as-applied challenge to acts or omissions of the defendants, but could not plausibly allege that the vaccination policy was not neutral or generally applicable. Id. at *19-20. The court found that the plaintiffs sufficiently stated a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy and denied the motion to dismiss this claim. The court granted the motion to dismiss the takings clause claim, as the plaintiffs failed to show that their alleged deprivation of wages and benefits constituted a taking for public use. Finally, the court stated that the plaintiffs adequately pled a failure to accommodate their religious beliefs under Washington law and denied the motion to dismiss this claim. Accordingly, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. 5. Rulings Denying Preemptive Motions To Dismiss Of course, businesses did not prevail across the board on all dispositive motions in 2024. In one unsuccessful attempt to dismiss class-wide litigation, the plaintiffs in Adams, et al. v. Cook County Sheriff’s Office , 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12541 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 24, 2024), who were correctional officers employed by the Cook County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO), filed three separate class actions alleging that the CCSO and Cook County failed to adequately address ongoing and severe sexual harassment by detainees. The plaintiffs included female officers in two cases, and, in one action, male officers who believed they faced distinct and significant harassment and harm. Notably, the defendants had already fought off previous class actions raising the same concerns, which, as here, raised claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Illinois Civil Rights Act. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs could not establish the requisite intent to discriminate on the basis of sex, by virtue of alleging the harassment affected all genders. The defendants further argued that, at worst, their actions were inadequate, but not deliberately indifferent such as to create liability. The court disagreed. On the issue of intent, the court explained that it was possible for an employer to discriminate in multiple ways, including ways that affected one gender but not another. Likewise, the defendants’ framing of the issue as one based on an amorphous level of “minimum protection” was not the proper lens through which to understand the plaintiffs’ claims. Rather, the issue centered on whether employees have been injured by their employer’s deliberate and distinct failure to adequately protect employees of both genders, which could not be decided this early in the litigation. Accordingly, the court permitted the plaintiffs’ claims to survive, except as against three plaintiffs who were barred by the statute of limitations. In Townsend, et al. v. Haza Foods, LLC , 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195570 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2024), the plaintiff, a wheelchair user, filed a class action lawsuit under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) against the defendants, owner/operators of multiple Wendy’s restaurants. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss and to strike the class claims from the complaint, and the court denied the motion. The plaintiff alleged accessibility issues in the parking lots of the Wendy’s restaurants, due to excessive slopes that impeded the plaintiff’s ability to safely navigate the accessible parking spaces and routes. The plaintiff contended that the violations affected all wheelchair users with mobility disabilities, and thus all faced similar barriers at Wendy’s locations across the country. The plaintiff also contended that the defendants’ failure to remedy the issues was due to a nationwide policy of non-compliance with ADA standards. The plaintiff argued that, as franchisees operating under a common franchise agreement, the defendants were responsible for maintaining the restaurants in compliance with ADA standards. The defendants argued that the plaintiff lacked standing to pursue claims against restaurants she has not visited and did not intend to visit. The defendants also contended that the class action could not be certified. The court rejected the defendants’ arguments. It reasoned that the plaintiff had standing to bring claims for the specific restaurant she visited and, due to the commonality of the issues across multiple locations, as to the nationwide class claims. The court also ruled that the plaintiff’s allegations suggested a systemic problem with the defendants’ parking lot accessibility, which affected other disabled individuals, and therefore supported class certification. Accordingly, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss or strike the class allegations.
13
© Duane Morris LLP 2025
Duane Morris Discrimination Class Action Review – 2025
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online