Duane Morris Class Action Review - 2023 - Report - Page 111
20-CV-754 (W.D. Penn. Dec. 7, 2022), the plaintiffs – a group of 47 individuals –
challenged Giant Eagle’s mask policy under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities
Act for discrimination and retaliation. They sought injunctive relief for an accommodation
due to asserted disabilities that had precluded them from shopping at Giant Eagle
stores without masks. Id. at 1. The plaintiffs alleged that the state mask mandate in
Pennsylvania allowed exceptions for individuals with medical conditions who were
unable to wear masks, but Giant Eagle’s policy contained no such exception, and the
store retaliated against individuals for seeking an accommodation to shop without
masks. Id. at 3. The Court noted that the mask restrictions were no longer in effect. As a
result, the Court issued a show cause order for the parties to demonstrate why the
matter remained justiciable. Id. at 1. After the parties submitted briefing, the Court
determined that even if there was a resurgence of the pandemic, similar issues would
not likely arise necessitating a ruling now. Id. at p. 14. Given the mootness of the federal
claims, the Court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and declined
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. Id. at 15-16.
K.
Preemptive Motions To Dismiss Class Claims In Civil Rights Litigation
While preemptive motions to strike class claims are a viable defense strategy, in the
main this tactic was largely unsuccessful in the civil rights class action space in 2022.
In Carroll, et al. v. Walden University, LLC, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214538 (D. Md. Nov.
28, 2022), the Court denied a motion to dismiss claims of fraud and civil rights violations
against defendant Walden University in a class action claiming the university misled
students about the length of its doctorate program and costs that amounted to
approximately $28.5 million in tuition excesses. The plaintiffs, a group of former
students, alleged the university deliberately prolonged program requirements in order to
force students to pay for additional credits. Id. at *3. Claims were brought pursuant to
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Minnesota
Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, and the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
Id. at *5. The court determined that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged intentional
discrimination based on race to support a claim under Title VI in claiming the predatory
and fraudulent program explicitly targeted black students based on their race and
constituted “reverse redlining.” Id. at *9. The court also determined that at the pleadings
stage, the plaintiffs “are not required to establish a prima facie case of discrimination,”
and therefore are not required to allege similarly-situated individuals did not suffer the
same adverse actions. Id. at *19. For these reasons, the court opined that it was
sufficient that the plaintiffs alleged discrimination in violation of Title VI to survive at the
motion to dismiss stage, which they had done in order to proceed. Id.
III.
Top Civil Rights Class Action Settlements
Settlement numbers in civil rights class actions were robust. The top ten settlements
totaled $1.31 billion. Among the various case resolutions, an array of sexual abuse
class actions against universities fueled over $1 billion worth of settlements.
110
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
