Issue link: http://read.dmtmag.com/i/165243
Legal how critical it is to understand contract terms before signing. One of the first steps in every class action suit is the court's certification of the "class." If the class is not certified, the suit cannot go forward, and each plaintiff will have to sue the defendant(s) individually. In Comcast v. Behrend, the issue was whether the class was properly certified by the lower court. In this case, a group of customers attempted to bring suit against the cable provider Comcast. The plaintiffs claimed that they were being overcharged in violation of antitrust law. The Court did not rule on the merits of the case, finding instead that the customers did not qualify as a class. According to the Court, the plaintiffs did not provide enough evidence that damages could be established on a class-wide basis. In other words, it would be too difficult and time consuming for the Court to decide whether the plaintiffs were harmed equally and whether there was a way to figure out how the money would be divided among the plaintiffs if they won the case. The Comcast decision makes it more difficult for a group of plaintiffs to qualify as a class, effectively shielding the companies most likely to be targets of class actions, such as equipment distributors in product liability cases. After Comcast, to qualify as a class, a group of plaintiffs would need to prove, after a rigorous analysis, that the formula it proposes to calculate damages is sufficiently linked to common interests of the class before the Court would even listen to an argument about liability. Overall, the Court's decisions to make it more difficult to form a class and file a class action suit should be good news for companies that are frequently the target of frivolous legal claims. What Happens in HR Doesn't Necessarily Stay in HR Cases involving employees (both current and former) have increased significantly in recent years. Whether it's discrimination or unlawful retaliation, employment-related cases can be costly – in financial terms and for your company's reputation. While the full impact on business is yet unknown, the Court's decision in United States v. Windsor – the mediahyped case overturning the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – will definitely be felt by employees and employers alike. Businesses with more than 50 employees in states that recognize same-sex marriage are now required to apply the provisions of both the Family Medical Leave Act and COBRA to employees with same-sex spouses. The Supreme Court also addressed the issue of employee harassment. In Vance v. Ball State ("Vance"), the Court narrowed the scope of instances in which an employer is liable for the harassment of one employee by another. The employer is liable either when it is negligent in controlling working conditions (regardless of who is doing the harassing), or when the offending act was committed by the worker's supervisor. The real impact of Vance is that the Court limits the definition of "supervisor" to describe only an individual who is able to take adverse employment action against the harassed employee, such as firing, demoting, transferring, or disciplining. In all instances where the employee is allegedly harassed by anyone other than a supervisor, (s)he will have to prove that the employer was negligent in controlling work conditions. So by narrowing the definition of supervisor, the Vance ruling significantly lessens the likelihood of successful harassment suits against a company for the actions of its employees. The Court also restricted the ability of employees to bring claims for discriminatory retaliation. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar addresses retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII, which aims to end unlawful discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age and/or disability in the workplace, empowers workers to sue for "retaliation" if the employee believes an adverse action is the result of a prior complaint about such discrimination. The Court found that even if an employee can prove there is improper motivation for an adverse employment action, the employee must prove that the retaliation was the sole motivating factor. This outcome shields employers from costly litigation by making it more difficult for employees to prove retaliation in the workplace. While the landmark DOMA decision could prove to be an added cost for companies, in the overall employment law area employers definitely came out ahead. The Court significantly narrowed the ability of plaintiffs to bring what are often costly claims against employers. What's the Verdict? The work does not end with the Supreme Court's decisions. Every court across the country is required to follow those decisions. After this year, particularly with regard to class actions and employment law issues, lower courts will have their work cut out for them in figuring out just when a class may be certified, when a harassed employee may successfully make a claim against the employer, or when arbitration clauses will or will not be upheld. While the Supreme Court receives plenty of attention from scholars and the media, a savvy executive, regardless of industry, should be aware of what's happening at the nation's top court. If you don't pay attention, you could end up paying a high hourly rate to your local lawyer – not that the trial bar will be complaining! n Laura Vlieg is a legal intern at Obadal, Filler, MacLeod & Klein, P.L.C. and a thirdyear law student at William & Mary Law School. September 2013 | Construction Equipment Distribution | www.cedmag.com | 43 42_Supreme_Court_Feature_KP.indd 43 8/28/13 12:30 PM