Duffek v. iMedia Brands, Inc.

Background

Laura Duffek alleged that iMedia Brands, Inc. violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act when it terminated her employment on March 24, 2020. Her termination letter stated that iMedia was implementing a workforce reduction because of unforeseeable business circumstances, including the market and financial effects of the spread of COVID-19. The letter also acknowledged that the Act generally requires 60 days’ advance notice.

The opinion states that iMedia terminated 108 Minnesota employees on March 24, 2020, another 34 on April 8 or 15, and another 17 on April 24. Duffek alleged that these terminations constituted a mass layoff covered by the Act and that iMedia failed to provide the required notice. She sought back pay, benefits, and attorney fees for herself and a proposed class of 15 former Minnesota-based iMedia employees.

Class-certification standards

To obtain class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the party seeking certification must show that the proposed class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a), including numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. The party must also show that the class fits within one of Rule 23(b)’s categories.

The court focused on numerosity under Rule 23(a)(1) and adequacy under Rule 23(a)(4). Numerosity requires that the class be so large that joining all members in one case would be impracticable. Adequacy requires the proposed representative to fairly and adequately protect the class’s interests. A serious conflict between the representative and the class can defeat certification.

Numerosity

The court held that the proposed class of 15 did not satisfy the numerosity requirement. It explained that no fixed minimum number controls, but certification of a class of 15 would be an outlier. The court also noted that cases involving roughly 15 joined plaintiffs are not uncommon.

Other factors did not change the result. The record did not provide specific information about each potential class member’s claim, but the court considered it reasonable to conclude that up to 60 days of back pay and benefits could motivate each person to pursue an individual claim. The proposed class members had worked in iMedia’s Minnesota offices, iMedia had provided detailed information making them easy to identify and locate, and Duffek identified no particular difficulty in trying the claims together as individual lawsuits. The court therefore concluded that joinder was practicable and that Rule 23(a)(1)’s numerosity requirement was not met.

Adequacy of representation

The court alternatively held that Duffek was not an adequate class representative because she was pursuing a separate age-discrimination claim. Duffek had filed an individual age-discrimination charge with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the charge remained pending when the court considered the class-certification motion. Duffek confirmed that she intended to pursue the discrimination claim after completing the administrative process.

iMedia argued that Duffek’s simultaneous individual and class claims created a conflict because any settlement would address both claims together. Duffek argued that the conflict was speculative and that the claims sought different damages.

The court found iMedia’s argument more persuasive. It reasoned that a global settlement could require Duffek to choose between accepting a larger settlement for her age-discrimination claim while accepting less for the class’s WARN Act claim, or rejecting an acceptable WARN Act settlement because the age-discrimination portion was too low. The court concluded that these conflicts were real rather than hypothetical and made Duffek an inadequate class representative under Rule 23(a)(4).

Disposition

The court denied Laura Duffek’s motion for class certification. It did not decide the merits of Duffek’s allegation that iMedia violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.