best opportunity to dispose of the litigation in a targeted, cheaper, and final way. 7. Rulings On Decertification Motions
In instances where circumstances demonstrate, typically through discovery, that certification of a class is not appropriate, or never was appropriate, employers can file a motion for decertification. More commonly seen in courts in recent years, employers have found a substantial amount of success with these motions. These motions do not always prove successful. One notable example was Marinello, et al. v. Central Bucks School District, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87314 (E.D. Penn. May 15, 2024), where the plaintiffs, a group of female educators, filed a collective action alleging that the defendant, the school district violated the Equal Pay Act (EPA) by paying female teachers less than their male counterparts. The plaintiffs argued that despite similar work, female teachers were unfairly placed lower on salary scales compared to male teachers. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgement, and the defendant moved to decertify the collective action. The court denied all three motions. The defendant argued that the plaintiffs failed to identify male comparators, could not establish that both genders were treated differently, and that some of the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The plaintiffs argued that they sufficiently established that the defendant was liable under the EPA, and that they demonstrated that they were paid less than male counterparts. The defendant also argued that the collective action should be decertified because the plaintiffs were not similarly-situated, and that individual assessments rather than a common policy affected salary placements. The court found that genuine disputes of material fact existed, such that summary judgment was not appropriate for either party. The court also ruled that plaintiffs demonstrated sufficient similarities among the collective action members and that fairness and procedural considerations favored maintaining the collective action, and denied the motion to decertify. The defense found more success seeking decertification in Wood, et al. v. Learjet, Inc. , 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36177 (D. Kan. Mar. 1, 2024). In Wood , the plaintiffs, both over the age of 40 and former employees at the Bombardier Flight Test Center (BFTC), operated by Learjet, filed a collective action alleging a pattern or practice of age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The plaintiffs sought and obtained conditional certification for a collective action consisting of non-union personnel over the age of 40 and employed since April 2, 2016 at the BFTC whose employment was terminated for various reasons. Both named plaintiffs were terminated for performance issues, one resulting in a safety violation while the other producing significant time management concerns. Of the four opt-in plaintiffs, one was terminated for failing to repay a tax payment reimbursement to the company, while the remaining three were laid off in connection with corporate reorganizations. On its motion to decertify, defendants argued that plaintiffs were not similarly-situated, nor did they present evidence of a collective-wide discriminatory pattern or practice that could tie the dissimilar claims together into one action. In response, the plaintiffs referenced a 2014 comment from the program director, which, they claim, exhibited a company-wide effort to push the organization younger. The court disagreed. It explained that the plaintiffs had no other evidence of a discriminatory policy other than this comment, which, alone, did not rise to the level of company policy. Moreover, the employment decisions themselves were made by different decisions makers, over several years, none of whom were present during the single stray comment, further undermining any concerted movement to target older employees. Moreover, the individual differences between the named and opt-in plaintiffs – who were employed in different positions, reported to different supervisors, and terminated for different reasons, at different times, and by different decision-makers – were sufficient to de-certify the collective action, as was the individualized evidence the defendant would need to defend against each claim. These reasons, along with fairness and procedural considerations, dictated granting the motion for decertification. In sum, while motions for decertification have risen in popularity, the overall results are mixed. We expect this trend to continue into 2025, particularly as class actions as a whole continue to skyrocket.
17
© Duane Morris LLP 2025
Duane Morris Discrimination Class Action Review – 2025
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online