New England Legal Foundation
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission & History
    • Annual Reports
    • Board of Directors
    • State Advisory Councils >
      • Connecticut
      • Maine
      • Massachusetts
      • New Hampshire
      • Rhode Island
      • Vermont
    • Trustees
    • Members
    • Staff
    • Job & Internship Opportunities
  • News & Events
  • Docket
  • Briefs
  • Donate
  • Contact

DiFiore v. American Airlines, Inc

10/7/2009

 
Arguing for the Application of Rule 23 Class Certification Standards to Employment Class Actions Under G. L. c. 149, § 150

This case raised, on a question certified by the federal court to the SJC, the issue of the standard for the certification in class actions brought in connection with employment actions under G. L. c. 149, § 150.  The federal case, which had generated a fair amount of press coverage, was filed by American Airlines skycaps who allege that, under the Massachusetts tips statute, a fee the airline charges for curbside baggage services constitutes a tip that must be paid over to them.  U.S. District Court Judge William G. Young certified a question of statutory construction to the Massachusetts high court on the issue and the plaintiffs tried to use the occasion to seek a determination from the SJC that G. L. c. 149, § 150, which permits class actions to be brought on behalf of “similarly situated” plaintiffs based on violations of any of nine employment statutes, creates an exemption from the class action requirements set out in Rule 23 of the federal and state Rules of Civil Procedure.  

NELF and the Associated Industries of Massachusetts argued in an amicus brief filed in support of American Airlines that since Judge Young had already refused to certify a class, the plaintiffs were using the certified question procedure as a way to obtain an impermissible review in state court of a federal court order.  NELF argued that the SJC should therefore not respond at all to the plaintiffs’ request for an opinion on the issue of class action requirements under G. L. c. 149, § 150.  NELF also argued the SJC should decline the request because, unlike a properly certified question, any answer that SJC might give to this question would not determine any issue in the federal court, where Judge Young had firmly declared himself bound by federal law to apply federal Rule 23 standards, regardless of the public policy of the Commonwealth.  In the alternative, NELF argued that if the Court nonetheless addressed the plaintiffs’ question, it should reject the contention that § 150 relaxes the requirements for maintaining class actions.  NELF argued by analogy that SJC precedent requires the application of Rule 23(a) standards to putative class actions under the state Consumer Protection Act, G. L. c. 93A, § 9(2), which employs identical “similarly situated” language.  NELF further argued that the requirement of numerosity is fundamental to the very notion of a class action, which is meant to provide a substitute procedure when joinder is impracticable, and that application of the other Rule 23(a) requirements ensures the economical use of judicial resources and protects the due process rights of class members who are not named plaintiffs.  

In its decision, the SJC followed the first course of action urged by NELF and declined to consider the class certification issue because the question was not properly before it.

 


Comments are closed.

    The Docket

    To obtain a copy of any of NELF's briefs, contact us at info@nelfonline.org.

    Categories

    All
    1st Circuit Court Of Appeals
    2nd Circuit Court Of Appeals
    3rd Circuit Court Of Appeals
    Business Litigation Session
    CT
    CT Superior Court
    CT Supreme Court
    Employer Employee Relationships
    February 2018
    February 2019
    Government Regulation/Administration Of Justice
    MA
    MA Appeals Court
    MA Division Of Administrative Law Appeals
    March 2015
    MA Superior Court
    MA Supreme Judicial Court
    MA US District Court
    ME
    ME Supreme Judicial Court
    NH
    NH Supreme Court
    Property Rights
    RI
    RI Supreme Court
    SCOTUS
    United States Supreme Court
    US Court Of Appeals Federal Circuit
    US District Court ME
    VT
    VT Supreme Court

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    August 2020
    June 2020
    January 2020
    June 2019
    April 2019
    October 2018
    June 2018
    February 2018
    October 2017
    October 2016
    June 2016
    February 2016
    October 2015
    June 2015
    March 2015
    October 2014
    June 2014
    February 2014
    October 2013
    June 2013
    February 2013
    October 2012
    June 2012
    February 2012
    October 2011
    June 2011
    February 2011
    October 2010
    June 2010
    February 2010
    October 2009
    February 2009
    October 2008
    June 2008
    February 2008
    October 2007
    June 2007
    October 2006
    June 2006
    February 2006
    October 2005
    June 2005
    February 2005
    October 2004
    June 2004
    February 2004
    October 2003
    May 2003
    February 2003
    September 2002
    May 2002
    February 2002
    May 2001