Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

Several employees of United Airlines challenged the company's COVID-19 vaccine mandate, alleging that United failed to provide reasonable religious and medical accommodations, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). United required all U.S. employees to be vaccinated by specific deadlines unless granted a religious or medical exemption. Employees seeking a religious accommodation needed to provide a personal statement of belief and a third-party attestation; those seeking a medical exemption had to submit supporting medical documentation. United initially planned to place all exempted employees on unpaid leave but later revised its policy for non-customer-facing employees, allowing them to work with masking and testing requirements, while customer-facing employees remained on indefinite unpaid leave.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas considered and partially granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The district court rejected a class seeking injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2) and a subclass of employees subject to masking and testing requirements, finding that the proposed classes lacked commonality and predominance due to the individualized nature of harm and the need for separate inquiries into the circumstances of each member. The court certified a modified subclass under Rule 23(b)(3) consisting of religious-accommodation seekers who were placed on unpaid leave but excluded those with medical accommodations from the subclass.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the class certification order under an abuse of discretion standard. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the broader classes and subclasses due to the individualized nature of the claims and in certifying the subclass of religious-accommodation seekers placed on unpaid leave. The court found that common questions predominated and that a class action was a superior method of adjudication for that subclass. View "Sambrano v. United Airlines" on Justia Law

In the fall of 2025, federal immigration authorities increased enforcement activities in Chicago through “Operation Midway Blitz,” prompting protests near an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in Broadview, Illinois. Protesters and journalists alleged that federal officers from ICE, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) violated their First and Fourth Amendment rights by deploying tear gas and other chemical agents without justification. The plaintiffs described instances of excessive force and sought injunctive relief to stop such practices.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued a temporary restraining order and later a broad preliminary injunction that applied districtwide, enjoining all federal law enforcement officers and agencies from using certain crowd control tactics. The court also certified a plaintiff class and required ongoing compliance reporting from DHS officials. The government appealed the preliminary injunction, arguing it was overbroad and infringed on separation of powers principles. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit stayed the injunction, citing its expansive scope and concerns over standing.Subsequently, as the enforcement operation ended and no further constitutional violations were reported, the plaintiffs moved to dismiss the case. The district court dismissed the case without prejudice and decertified the class, contrary to the plaintiffs’ request for dismissal with prejudice. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that extraordinary circumstances warranted vacating the district court’s preliminary injunction. The Seventh Circuit held that vacatur was appropriate because the case had become moot and to prevent the now-unreviewable injunction from producing adverse legal consequences in future litigation. The court vacated the injunction and dismissed the appeal. View "Chicago Headline Club v. Noem" on Justia Law

Two individuals each owned companies that distributed snack foods for a larger food company. Years earlier, they had joined a class action lawsuit claiming that the company misclassified them as independent contractors rather than employees. That class action ended in a settlement, which included an optional provision: class members could agree to arbitrate future disputes in exchange for an additional payment. Both individuals opted into that provision and accepted the payment, thereby agreeing to resolve future disputes through arbitration.Several years later, the two individuals brought a new lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, again asserting claims related to alleged misclassification and seeking damages. The defendant company moved to stay the case and compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), citing the prior agreement. The plaintiffs opposed, arguing that they were exempt from the FAA as transportation workers under Section 1. The district court rejected that exemption argument, but did not order arbitration. Instead, it stayed and administratively closed the case without entering judgment, stating it was not compelling arbitration but was closing its doors to further proceedings.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court’s handling. The court held that, although the district court did not expressly deny the motion to compel arbitration, its actions amounted to a denial, and thus appellate jurisdiction existed under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(B). The First Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings, directing the district court to determine whether the motion to compel arbitration should be granted or denied and to explain its reasoning. The court also clarified that, under the parties’ agreement, any compelled arbitration must proceed on an individual, not class, basis. View "Perruzzi v. The Campbell's Company" on Justia Law

After receiving a letter from a debt collector that she believed was misleading and threatening, an individual felt confused and feared potential legal action. She consulted an attorney and then initiated a putative class action lawsuit, seeking damages for herself and similarly situated Wisconsin consumers under both federal and state consumer protection statutes. The alleged violation centered on the misleading nature of the debt collection letter and its implications regarding possible litigation. After some discovery, she elected to pursue monetary damages for a putative class under the Wisconsin Consumer Act and sent the debt collector a statutory notice and demand.In response, the debt collector offered the individual actual damages and the maximum statutory penalty, and promised to cease sending similar collection letters, offering this as “an appropriate remedy.” The individual rejected the offer and moved for class certification. The Milwaukee County Circuit Court granted class certification, reasoning that the statutory provision required an appropriate remedy to be offered to the whole class, not just the named plaintiff. The court concluded that allowing a defendant to “pick off” the class representative would undermine the purpose of class actions under the Wisconsin Consumer Act. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed, focusing on the public policy interests underlying class actions.The Supreme Court of Wisconsin reviewed the case. The court held that under Wis. Stat. § 426.110(4)(c), when a customer initiates a class action for damages, the statute requires that an appropriate remedy be given to the party bringing suit—not the putative class—within 30 days after notice. If the party plaintiff receives or is promised an appropriate remedy, a class action for damages cannot be maintained. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and remanded for further proceedings. View "Gudex v. Franklin Collection Service, Inc." on Justia Law

Two Ohio homeowners discovered that their personal information, including their names, addresses, and property details, appeared in paid reports on a real estate research website operated by a company. The website allows users to search for property information by address or owner name and provides one free report per user, with additional reports available for purchase. The homeowners, without having consented to the use of their information, filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of similarly situated individuals, alleging that the company violated their rights of publicity under both Ohio statute and common law by using their identities for commercial gain.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio reviewed the case after the company moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding that the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged that their identities possessed independent commercial value—a necessary element of a right of publicity claim under Ohio law.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit conducted a de novo review. It affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that the plaintiffs failed to plead facts showing that their names or identities had any commercial value, as required by both Ohio’s statutory and common law right of publicity. The court reasoned that simply being used in a commercial context does not satisfy the commercial value requirement, relying on both prior circuit precedent and Ohio state court decisions. The court also declined to certify a question of law to the Ohio Supreme Court, concluding that Ohio law on this issue was sufficiently settled. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "LaFleur v. Yardi Systems, Inc." on Justia Law

Two workers filed a putative class action against several contractors and subcontractors, alleging that they performed work on public works projects and were not paid overtime at the prevailing wage rates required by Nevada law. Their lawsuit sought damages equal to the difference between what they were paid and the higher amounts allegedly owed under Nevada’s prevailing-wage statute for both regular and overtime work. The plaintiffs also asserted, in the alternative, that they could recover these amounts under Nevada’s more general wage-and-hour provisions or as third-party beneficiaries of the relevant public works contracts. The complaint did not specify which public works projects were involved or allege that the plaintiffs had pursued administrative remedies through the Nevada Labor Commissioner.The case was first reviewed by the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the plaintiffs had not alleged exhaustion of the administrative remedies required under Nevada’s prevailing-wage law. The district court granted the motion to dismiss, ruling that there was no private right of action for wage claims under the prevailing-wage statute and that the alternative claims were derivative and failed for the same reason. The court also denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint, finding that amendment would be futile.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that NRS Chapter 338, Nevada’s prevailing-wage statute, does not provide a private right of action to employees outside the administrative process it creates. Claims for violation of the statute must first be brought through the administrative mechanisms with the Labor Commissioner, and cannot be circumvented by recasting them under other wage-and-hour laws or as third-party beneficiary claims. The court also found no error in denying leave to amend the complaint. View "STUCKEY VS. APEX MATERIALS, LLC" on Justia Law

Bradford entered into a service agreement with a Texas-based pest control company, Sovereign Pest Control, and as part of this agreement, provided his cell phone number to the company. Bradford later acknowledged that he gave his number so the company could contact him if needed. During their business relationship, Sovereign Pest made several pre-recorded calls to Bradford’s cell phone, including calls to schedule renewal inspections, after which Bradford scheduled inspections and renewed his service plan multiple times.Bradford initiated a putative class-action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, alleging that Sovereign Pest violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) by sending him unsolicited pre-recorded calls without his “prior express written consent.” The district court granted summary judgment for Sovereign Pest, holding that the calls did not constitute telemarketing and that Bradford had given prior express consent. Bradford appealed, arguing that the calls were telemarketing and that he had not given the required consent.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the summary judgment de novo and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the TCPA only requires “prior express consent,” which can be either oral or written, for any pre-recorded call to a wireless number, regardless of whether the call is telemarketing or informational. The court found that Bradford had provided prior express consent by voluntarily giving his cell phone number to the company in connection with the service agreement and by his subsequent conduct. It concluded that the statute does not require “prior express written consent” for telemarketing calls and that Bradford’s arguments to the contrary were unavailing. The Fifth Circuit therefore affirmed summary judgment in favor of Sovereign Pest. View "Bradford v. Sovereign Pest" on Justia Law

A company operating a private detention facility in Colorado under contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was sued in a class action by a former detainee. The lawsuit challenged two of the company’s work policies for detainees: a sanitation policy that required unpaid cleaning under threat of punishment, and a voluntary work program offering minimal pay. Plaintiffs alleged that the sanitation policy violated federal anti-forced-labor laws and that the voluntary work program constituted unjust enrichment under Colorado law.After discovery, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado considered the company’s argument that, under the Supreme Court’s decision in Yearsley v. W. A. Ross Construction Co., it could not be held liable for conduct that the government had lawfully “authorized and directed.” The District Court concluded that the government contract did not instruct the company to adopt the specific work policies at issue and that the company had developed those policies on its own. Therefore, the court held that the Yearsley doctrine did not shield the company from liability and allowed the case to proceed to trial.The company appealed immediately, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that a denial of Yearsley protection is not subject to interlocutory appeal under Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the Tenth Circuit’s decision, holding that Yearsley provides a merits defense, not an immunity from suit. Therefore, a pretrial order denying Yearsley protection cannot be immediately appealed; any review must wait until after final judgment. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Geo Group, Inc. v. Menocal" on Justia Law

A commercial trucking business owner, who is white, learned about a $25,000 grant program administered by two insurance companies in partnership with another company. The program offered grants to ten small businesses to help them purchase commercial vehicles but was limited to black-owned businesses. After receiving an email invitation to apply, the business owner began the online application but stopped and did not submit it upon realizing that only black-owned businesses were eligible. He later alleged that he would have otherwise applied and met all requirements except for the race-based criterion.Following the application deadline, the business owner and his company filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, claiming that the grant program’s racial eligibility requirement violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981 by denying them the opportunity to enter into two contracts: one at the application stage and one at the grant award stage. The complaint sought damages and injunctive relief. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they had not suffered a cognizable injury caused by the defendants’ conduct.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The Sixth Circuit held that the plaintiffs failed the causation requirement for standing because the business owner chose not to submit the application, resulting in any alleged injury being self-inflicted rather than fairly traceable to the defendants’ actions. The court clarified that the judgment was without prejudice and affirmed the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "Roberts v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Co." on Justia Law

A tornado struck Tennessee, damaging two properties owned by a church that held property insurance with an insurer. The church filed a claim, and the insurer made a payment, but the church alleged that the insurer improperly calculated the amount by subtracting depreciation for non-material costs (such as labor) from the "actual cash value" (ACV) payment, leading to a lower payout. The insurance policy did not specify whether labor should be depreciated. The church then brought a putative class action, asserting similar claims under the laws of ten states, seeking class certification for policyholders who received reduced ACV payments because of the insurer’s practice.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee addressed several motions. It rejected the insurer’s argument that the church lacked Article III standing to assert claims under other states' laws, and denied the insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Texas law. When considering class certification, the district court found the plaintiff satisfied Rule 23(a)’s requirements but limited class certification to four states (Arizona, California, Illinois, and Tennessee), citing unsettled law in the remaining six states. The court reasoned that the uncertain nature of laws in Kentucky, Ohio, Missouri, Mississippi, Texas, and Vermont would make a ten-state class action unwieldy, and thus declined to certify a class for those states.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decisions. It held that the plaintiff had Article III standing to represent the class because the alleged injuries were substantially similar across the proposed class members. The appellate court found that the district court abused its discretion by not conducting an Erie analysis for five of the six excluded states and vacated the class-certification order in part, remanding for further proceedings. However, it affirmed the denial of class certification for Vermont due to insufficient authority on Vermont law. View "Generation Changers Church v. Church Mutual Ins. Co." on Justia Law