Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

Several individuals, representing a class, challenged a health insurance company’s refusal to cover gender-affirming care for transgender individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The company, acting as a third-party administrator for employer-sponsored, self-funded health plans, denied coverage for such treatments based on explicit plan exclusions requested by the employer sponsors. Some plaintiffs also alleged that they were denied coverage for treatments that would have been covered for other diagnoses, such as precocious puberty, but were denied solely because of the concurrent diagnosis of gender dysphoria.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington certified the class and granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The district court rejected the company’s arguments that it was not subject to Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act because its third-party administrator activities were not federally funded, that it was merely following employer instructions under ERISA, and that it was shielded by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The district court also found that the exclusions constituted sex-based discrimination under Section 1557.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court that the company is subject to Section 1557, that ERISA does not require administrators to enforce unlawful plan terms, and that RFRA does not provide a defense in this context. However, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court’s analysis of sex-based discrimination was undermined by the Supreme Court’s intervening decision in United States v. Skrmetti, which clarified the application of sex discrimination standards to exclusions for gender dysphoria treatment. The Ninth Circuit vacated the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to consider whether, under Skrmetti, the exclusions at issue may still constitute unlawful discrimination, particularly in cases involving pretext or proxy discrimination or where plaintiffs had other qualifying diagnoses. View "PRITCHARD V. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF ILLINOIS" on Justia Law

Several employees of the City and County of San Francisco who joined the city’s retirement system at age 40 or older and later retired due to disability challenged the method used to calculate their disability retirement benefits. The city’s retirement system uses two formulas: Formula 1, which provides a higher benefit if certain thresholds are met, and Formula 2, which imputes service years until age 60 but caps the benefit at a percentage of final compensation. Plaintiffs argued that Formula 2 discriminates against employees who enter the system at age 40 or above, in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).Initially, the San Francisco City and County Superior Court sustained the city’s demurrer, finding the plaintiffs had not timely filed an administrative charge. The California Court of Appeal reversed that decision, allowing the case to proceed. After class certification and cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court found triable issues and held a bench trial. At trial, plaintiffs presented expert testimony based on hypothetical calculations, while the city’s expert criticized the lack of actual data analysis and highlighted factors such as breaks in service and purchased credits.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the trial court’s post-trial decision. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove intentional age discrimination or disparate impact under FEHA. The court found substantial evidence that Formula 2 was motivated by pension status and credited years of service, not age. The plaintiffs’ evidence was insufficient because it relied on hypotheticals rather than actual data showing a disproportionate adverse effect on the protected group. The appellate court also affirmed the denial of leave to amend the complaint, finding no reversible error. The judgment in favor of the city was affirmed. View "Carroll v. City & County of S.F." on Justia Law

During the COVID-19 pandemic, an employee in Nevada worked for a large retailer that required workers to undergo COVID-19 testing before each shift, following state emergency orders and workplace safety recommendations. The company did not pay employees for the time spent on these pre-shift tests. The employee filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, alleging violations of Nevada’s wage-hour statutes and the state constitution, including failure to pay for all hours worked, minimum wage, overtime, and timely payment upon termination.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied the employer’s motion to dismiss, which had argued that the time spent on COVID-19 testing was not compensable “work” under the federal Portal-to-Portal Act (PPA). The district court held that Nevada law had not incorporated the PPA, and thus the pre-shift screenings were compensable. The court then certified a question to the Supreme Court of Nevada, asking whether Nevada law incorporates the PPA’s exceptions to compensable work.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the certified question and determined that Nevada’s wage-hour statutes do not incorporate the PPA’s broad exceptions to compensable work. The court found that Nevada law provides only narrow, specific exceptions to work compensation, unlike the PPA’s general exclusions for preliminary and postliminary activities. The court concluded that the Nevada Legislature did not intend to adopt the PPA’s exceptions, as reflected in the statutory language and legislative history. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Nevada answered the certified question in the negative, holding that Nevada’s wage-hour laws do not incorporate the PPA’s exceptions to compensable work. View "AMAZON.COM SERVS., LLC VS. MALLOY" on Justia Law

A restaurant and bar in Pennsylvania employed bartenders and servers who participated in a tip pool, which was allegedly distributed in part to a salaried manager, contrary to federal and state wage laws. An employee who worked there from September 2021 to December 2022 filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA). The claims centered on the manager’s alleged receipt of tip-pool funds intended for bartenders. The plaintiff sought damages and styled the case as a hybrid action: an FLSA collective action under § 216(b) and a Rule 23(b)(3) class action for the state law claim.The parties stipulated to conditional certification of an FLSA collective, and notice was sent to potential members, ten of whom opted in. After discovery, the parties reached a settlement agreement, proposing a Rule 23(b)(3) class settlement that would release wage-and-hour claims, including unasserted FLSA claims, for all class members who did not opt out. The District Court held a hearing focused on whether class members who had not opted into the FLSA collective could be required to release FLSA claims through the class settlement. The District Court denied preliminary approval, reasoning that § 216(b) prohibited such releases, and denied reconsideration, certifying the legal question for interlocutory appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the certified question de novo. It held that § 216(b) of the FLSA establishes only the mechanism for litigating FLSA claims, not the conditions for waiving them, and does not prohibit the release of unasserted FLSA claims in a Rule 23(b)(3) opt-out class settlement. The Court vacated the District Court’s order and remanded for a full fairness inquiry under Rule 23. View "Lundeen v. 10 West Ferry Street Operations LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was employed by a staffing company and assigned to work at a warehousing and logistics firm, performing duties as a materials handler and forklift operator. He filed a class action and a separate representative action alleging various wage and hour violations, including claims for unpaid minimum wages, waiting time penalties, and civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). The two cases were consolidated. The plaintiff and his direct employer had entered into an arbitration agreement, which referenced the American Arbitration Association (AAA) rules but did not explicitly state that the arbitrator would decide issues of arbitrability.The defendants moved in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County to compel arbitration of the plaintiff’s individual claims, dismiss class allegations, and stay judicial proceedings. They argued that the arbitration agreement was governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and that the AAA rules incorporated into the agreement delegated arbitrability issues to the arbitrator. The plaintiff opposed, asserting exemption from the FAA as a transportation worker and arguing that certain claims, including those under PAGA and for unpaid wages, were not arbitrable under California law. The trial court found the FAA did not apply, applied California law, and held that the agreement did not clearly and unmistakably delegate arbitrability to the arbitrator. The court compelled arbitration of some claims but allowed others, including minimum wage and PAGA claims, to proceed in court.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, affirmed the trial court’s order. The court held that, in the context of a mandatory employment arbitration agreement, mere incorporation of AAA rules without explicit language in the agreement is not clear and unmistakable evidence of intent to delegate arbitrability to the arbitrator. The court also held that claims for waiting time penalties based on minimum wage violations and all PAGA claims were not arbitrable under California law when the FAA does not apply. View "Villalobos v. Maersk, Inc." on Justia Law

A group of nurses directly employed by the City and County of San Francisco, represented by their union, brought a class action alleging that the City failed to comply with Labor Code section 512.1, which requires public sector healthcare employers to provide meal and rest breaks and pay premiums for missed breaks. The nurses claimed that since the law’s effective date, the City had not provided the required breaks or compensation. The City and the union had previously negotiated a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that set out meal and rest break provisions and remedies for missed breaks, but the nurses argued these did not satisfy the new statutory requirements.The Superior Court of California, City and County of San Francisco, sustained the City’s demurrer, agreeing with the City’s argument that section 512.1 did not clearly apply to charter cities like San Francisco. The court did not address the City’s alternative constitutional argument regarding home rule authority. The nurses appealed this decision.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court held that the statutory language defining “employer” in section 512.1 was ambiguous as to whether it included charter cities and counties such as San Francisco. The court found that neither the statutory text, legislative history, nor legislative findings demonstrated a clear intent by the Legislature to override charter city home rule authority or to apply section 512.1 to charter cities. The court also noted that when the Legislature intends to regulate charter cities, it does so explicitly, which was not the case here. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that section 512.1 does not apply to the City and County of San Francisco. View "Levy v. City and County of San Francisco" on Justia Law

An employee of a large retail company alleged that, during her six-week employment at a California store, she was denied meal and rest breaks, not paid for overtime, did not receive proper wage statements, and was required to use her personal cell phone for work without reimbursement. She filed suit in state court, asserting individual, putative class, and Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims for violations of California’s Labor Code. The company removed the case to federal court.The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed several of the plaintiff’s class claims and denied class certification for the remaining class claim. The plaintiff continued to pursue her individual and PAGA claims. Shortly before trial, the parties settled the individual claims for $22,000 under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998, with the plaintiff dismissing her PAGA claims without prejudice. The settlement allowed the plaintiff to seek reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for work performed on her individual claims, as permitted by law. The district court awarded the plaintiff $297,799 in attorneys’ fees and $14,630 in costs, after she voluntarily reduced her fee request by nearly half to exclude time spent on class certification and legal assistants’ work.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the section 998 settlement agreement did not preclude the plaintiff from seeking attorneys’ fees for work on related claims under the standard set forth in Hensley v. Eckerhart, as long as those claims were intertwined with her individual claims. However, the Ninth Circuit found that the district court abused its discretion by failing to provide a clear explanation for the fee award. The court vacated the fee award and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the district court to provide a concise but clear explanation for any future fee determination. View "Alvarado v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc." on Justia Law

Two former employees of a fire alarm and sprinkler company provided fire alarm testing and inspection services on public works projects in New York. They alleged that their employer failed to pay them the prevailing wages required by New York Labor Law § 220, which mandates that workers on public works projects receive at least the prevailing rate of wages. The contracts between the employer and various public entities included clauses that either disclaimed the applicability of prevailing wage laws, were silent on the issue, or referenced prevailing wage rates. Many contracts also contained a provision shortening the statute of limitations for any action against the company to one year.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York granted partial summary judgment in favor of the employer on all prevailing wage-related claims. The court found that: (1) the contracts did not expressly promise to pay prevailing wages; (2) the one-year contractual limitations period barred the claims; and (3) fire alarm testing and inspection work was not covered by § 220’s prevailing wage requirement. The court also dismissed related quantum meruit and unjust enrichment claims and later approved a class action settlement on other claims, with the prevailing wage claims reserved for appeal.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that, based on a 2009 New York State Department of Labor opinion letter and relevant precedent, fire alarm testing and inspection work is covered by § 220, entitling the plaintiffs to prevailing wages. However, the Second Circuit found New York law unsettled on whether a promise to pay prevailing wages is implicit in every public works contract (even if not expressly stated) and whether a contractual one-year limitations period is enforceable against workers’ third-party beneficiary claims. The court therefore certified these two questions to the New York Court of Appeals for resolution. View "Walton v. Comfort Systems" on Justia Law

Two individuals applied for jobs at a retail liquor store chain in Washington after a new state law required employers to include wage and benefit information in all job postings. Both applicants submitted their applications through a third-party website, Indeed.com, where the postings did not include the required pay information. One of the applicants also interviewed in person and discussed pay with the store manager but ultimately declined a job offer. Both individuals then filed a class action lawsuit, seeking statutory damages for the employer’s failure to comply with the disclosure requirements.The case was initially brought in King County, Washington. The employer argued that the plaintiffs were not the type of “job applicants” the law was intended to protect, asserting that only those with a genuine or “bona fide” interest in the job should be eligible for remedies. The parties disagreed on the meaning of “job applicant” under the Washington Equal Pay and Opportunities Act (EPOA). The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, faced with this dispute, certified a question to the Washington Supreme Court, asking what a plaintiff must prove to be considered a “job applicant” under the statute.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington held that, under RCW 49.58.110(4), a person qualifies as a “job applicant” if they apply to a specific job posting, regardless of their subjective intent or whether they are a “bona fide” or “good faith” applicant. The court concluded that the plain language of the statute does not require proof of genuine interest in the position, and that the legislature intentionally omitted such a requirement. The court’s answer clarified that subjective intent is irrelevant for eligibility to seek remedies under the EPOA. View "Branson v. Washington Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC" on Justia Law

NCR Corporation established five “top hat” retirement plans to provide supplemental life annuity benefits to senior executives. Each plan promised participants a fixed monthly payment for life, with language allowing NCR to terminate the plans so long as no action “adversely affected” any participant’s accrued benefits. In 2013, NCR terminated the plans and paid participants lump sums it claimed were actuarially equivalent to the promised annuities, using mortality tables, actuarial calculations, and a 5% discount rate. NCR knew that, statistically, about half of the participants would outlive the lump sums if they continued to withdraw the same monthly benefit, resulting in some participants receiving less than they would have under the original annuity.Participants filed a class-action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleging breach of contract and seeking either replacement annuities or sufficient cash to purchase equivalent annuities. The district court certified the class and granted summary judgment for the participants, finding that NCR’s lump-sum payments adversely affected the accrued benefits of at least some participants, in violation of the plan language. The court ordered NCR to pay the difference between the lump sums and the cost of replacement annuities, plus prejudgment and postjudgment interest.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment order de novo. The Eleventh Circuit held that the plan language was unambiguous and did not permit NCR to unilaterally replace life annuities with lump sums that reduced the value of accrued benefits for any participant. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, including the remedy of requiring NCR to pay the cost of replacement annuities and awarding prejudgment interest. View "Hoak v. NCR Corp." on Justia Law