Duane Morris Class Action Review - 2023 - Report - Page 240
facilities,” including such “foundational tasks” as kitchen and laundry services. Id. The
district court granted class certification to three class, including: (i) a California Labor
Law class; (ii) a California Forced Labor class; and (iii) a National Forced Labor class.
The defendant argued as to the Forced Labor classes, the district court erred in finding
that there was significant proof that the plaintiffs were subject to an unlawful policy or
practice. The Ninth Circuit rejected the defendant’s position. It reasoned that that the
affidavits and testimony from detainees sufficiently established that detainees were
made to perform various duties daily and were subject to disciplinary measures if the
labor was not completed. The Ninth Circuit also found that whether or not the
defendant’s company-wide policies and practices violated the law and the rights of the
class members was a question that predominated over any individual inquiry. Relative
to the California Labor Law class, the Ninth Circuit concluded that there was a clear line
of causation between the alleged misclassification of detainee employees as
“volunteers” and the deprivation of earnings they may have suffered as a consequence
of the violation of California wage and hour laws. Id. at 848. For these reasons, the
Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling granting the plaintiffs’ motion for class
certification.
A group of plaintiffs successfully secured class certification on similar theories in
Magtoles, et al. v. United Staffing Registry, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93924 (E.D.N.Y.
May 25, 2022). The plaintiffs, a group of contract nurses, filed a class action alleging
that the defendant, a healthcare staffing agency, violated the TVPA. After discovery, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23, and the court granted
the motion. The defendant recruited nurses and other professionals to provide
healthcare services for clients in the New York City area. The majority of recruits were
from abroad and were citizens of the Philippines. The defendant required its foreign
recruits to sign a standard, three-year employment contract, which mandated that
nurses work a minimum number of 6,000 hours of work over the three-year period.
Recruits would be required to pay back $15 per hour not completed in the event they
terminated their own contracts with the defendant. The contracts also contained a noncompete clause, a prevailing wage provision, and an immigration notification provision,
all of which the plaintiffs challenged in the class action. Id. at *8. The court first
determined that the plaintiffs offered contracts to over 50 recruits, and thus, the
proposed class met the numerosity requirement of Rule 23. The court further ruled that
the commonality requirement was satisfied because the plaintiffs’ claims all rested on
the common contention that the liquidated damages provision, non-compete clause,
and immigration notification provision in the defendant’s standard contract violated the
TVPA. Id. at *11. The court also held that the plaintiffs’ claims were typical to those of
the proposed class because they all pertained to the same course of events, i.e., their
recruitment by the defendant pursuant to an employment contract containing the
challenged provisions. The court opined that the plaintiffs met the adequacy
requirement because they each entered into the same standard contract, they were not
aware of any interest that was antagonistic to the class, and they would continue to
remain actively involved in the litigation. As to the Rule 23(b) requirements, the court
found that common questions predominated with respect to the plaintiffs’ claims for
violations of the TVPA, breach of contract, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The
court explained that common questions predominated with respect to whether the
239
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
