Class Action Litigation
Practice Leader: Laurence Z. Shiekman
- See more information on Pepper's experience with class actions and other complex litigation involving claims of adverse health effects.
Pepper Hamilton LLP lawyers have represented clients in class actions involving a wide range of legal issues, including alleged product problems, employment, ERISA, and commercial and consumer finance matters. Pepper has been successful in preventing or limiting certification of classes, and Pepper lawyers have frequently defended such cases in federal and state courts.
Representative engagements include the following:
Employment/ERISA Cases
- successfully settled in 2012 a lawsuit filed in New York State court that certified a class of over 1,500 home health aides seeking overtime and alleging violations of state notice and record-keeping statute, limiting payout to a small fraction of unpaid overtime and spread of hours amounts
- obtained dismissal with prejudice in 2012 of putative collective action lawsuit alleging violations of FLSA, ERISA, and RICO statutes and dismissal of several state law causes of action based on the alleged failure of a Philadelphia-based health system to compensate employees for missed meal breaks; an appeal is pending before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals while remaining class claims are being litigated
- defeated in 2012 putative class claim against global manufacturing employer for alleged violation of state wage payment and collection law; continuing to defend same employer in remaining putative class and collective action where plaintiffs seek the payment of wages and overtime based on alleged violations of state minimum wage law and the FLSA
- obtained dismissal in 2012 of putative class and collective action against regional transportation employer where plaintiffs sought the payment of wages and overtime based on alleged violations of state law and the FLSA
- successfully obtained dismissal with prejudice in 2012 of putative collective action against health care employer where plaintiffs sought certification of class of 7,000 persons and the payment of wages and overtime based on alleged violations of the FLSA; related state law claims are being litigated
- Ballentine et al. v. Triad International Maintenance Corp., U.S.D.C., E.D. Michigan, Case Number 01-10357 — certified class action of approximately 350 employees in WARN Act action with exposure of approximately $3 million plus attorneys fees; settled for approximately $.40 on the dollar after discovery and motions
- Smith v. Chrysler Financial, C.A. 00-6003 (DMC), U.S.D.C., D.N.J. (putative race discrimination class action under Equal Credit Opportunity Act)
- Anderson, et al. v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 297 F. 3d 242 — successfully defended Conrail in ADEA mass action
- Bunnion v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 108 F. Supp. 2d 403 — successfully defended Conrail in ERISA and ADEA class action
- In re Unisys Savings Plan Lit., 1997 WL 732473 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 24, 1997), aff’d, 173 F.3d 145 (3d Cir. 1999), the Supreme Court denied certiorari on October 18, 1999 — successfully defended Unisys against class action claims regarding acquisition of certain guaranteed investment contracts
- Gillis v. Hoechst Celanese Corp., 889 F. Supp. 202 (E.D. Pa. 1995), aff’d, 103 F.3d 112 (3d Cir. 1996) — successful trial, and summary affirmance on appeal, of class action claims to alleged underfunding of pension asset transfer and severance benefits, on behalf of Hoechst Celanese Corporation and Hoechst Celanese Retirement Plan
- Engelhart v. Consolidated Rail Corp., No. 92-7046, 1996 WL 5526726 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 18, 1996), aff’d, 127 F.3d 1095 (3d Cir. Aug. 5, 1997) (Table, No. 96-1920), cert. den., 1998 WL 83637(U.S.) — successfully defended numerous class claims against Consolidated Rail Corporation and its fiduciaries alleging misuse of pension surplus, wrongful elimination of early retirement subsidies and improper offset of Railroad Retirement Board benefits
- Thomas v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 297 F. Supp. 2d 733 (ERISA class action)
- Black Grievance Committee v. Philadelphia Electric Company, (U.S.D.C., E.D. Pa.) — plaintiffs raised allegations of across the board race discrimination; on the eve of trial, the case was settled
- Kuhn, et al., v. Philadelphia Electric Company (U.S.D.C., E.D. Pa.) — plaintiffs raised allegations of across the board sex discrimination in two departments; the court found in favor of the company on all claims
- United Research Laboratory v. AT&T (U.S.D.C., E.D. Pa.) — a customer raised class action allegations against AT&T in connection with decisions to collect certain charges; the court granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of AT&T before any class action discovery was commenced
- defense of consolidated class action fiduciary breach litigation stemming from the purchase of $217 million in pension GICs issued by Executive Life Insurance Company
- defense of Intercontinental Life Company in class action claims to defined benefit pension plan surplus, partial plan termination allegations, and reporting and disclosure violations, arising from ILCO’s acquisition of a division of CIGNA Corporation
- defense of MEWA trustees in class action claims regarding adequacy of COBRA notices
- defense of Unisys Corporation in class action challenging interpretation of its long-term disability plan.
Tort Cases
- Weinberg v. Sun Company, 565 Pa. 612 (2001) (reversal of certification of consumer class under Pennsylvania’s Consumer Protection Law)
- Maestas v. Sofamor Danek Group, Inc., 33 S.W.3d 805 (Tenn. 2000) (denying cross-jurisdictional tolling of limitations period based on filing of class action)
- Brown v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 2000 WL 33342381 (C.P. Phila. 2000)
- McGeehan v. Becton-Dickinson & Co., 2000 WL 33128993 (C.P. Phila. 2000) (dismissing plaintiffs' class action for lack of injury)
- Fanning v. AcroMed Corp., 175 F.R.D. 158 (E.D. Pa. 1997) (certification of "limited fund" class)
- Brown v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 1987 WL 9273 (E.D. Pa. April 9, 1997) (In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litigation) (defeated plaintiffs’ efforts to certify medical monitoring class)
- In re Joint E. & S. District Asbestos Litigation, 878 F. Supp. 473 (E. & S.D.N.Y. 1995), aff’d, 1995 U.S. LEXIS 40151 (2d Cir. 1995) (certified “limited fund” class for distributors of Manville products)
- In re Orthopedic Bone Screw Litigation, 1995 WL 273600 (E.D. Pa. March 2, 1995) (denial of certification of nationwide product liability class)
- Harris v. Provident Mutual Life Insurance Company of Philadelphia, 1991 WL 152956 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 6, 1991), aff’d, 961 F.2d 1567 (3d Cir. 1992) (challenge brought by Ralph Nader’s Public Citizen law firm, challenging mutual insurer's method of calculating dividends paid to policyholders; court granted defendant's motion to dismiss and denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification)
- In re Sun Pipe Line Company/King of Prussia Litigation, 122 Mont. Co. L.J. 71 (Aug. 16, 1988), aff’d, 565 A.2d 825 (1989), aff’d, 589 A.2d 213 (1991) (denial of class certification in property damage action following rupture of pipeline)
- Moore v. Pavex, 106 Dauphin Co. R. 256, aff’d, 514 A.2d 137 (1986) (case dismissed for failure to state a claim for pure economic loss in property damage matter arising from contractor's rupture of city main water supply)
- Karcher v. Rohm and Haas Co. (C.P. Phila. 1986) (settlement of class action of toxic exposure claims)
- Johnson v. Rohm and Haas Co., 46 Pa. D & C 3d 215 (C.P. Bucks 1986) (denial of certification of class of local residents)
- Rauscher v. Abbott Labs, et al. 15 Phila. 251 (C.P. Phila. 1986) (dismissal of class action allegations in Pennsylvania DES litigation)
- In re Three Mile Island Litigation, 87 F.R.D. 433 (M.D. Pa. 1980) (defeated certification of medical monitoring class following discharge of radiation from nuclear power plant; later agreed to a stipulated class for settlement purposes)
Commercial Cases
- XF Enterprises v. BASF, et al. (C.P. Phila. 2000) (currently pending class action involving allegations under state antitrust common law and under Consumer Protection Act relating to vitamins)
- Mar v. Life Bank (Jackson Co. MO 2001) (consumer finance class action dismissed on federal preemption grounds)
- Stadler v. McCullough, 949 F. Supp. 311 (E.D. Pa. 1996) (denial of certification of class participants in profit-sharing plan)
- In re Weisbrod, 138 B.R. 869 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1992) (class action related to rapid refund program; certification denied)
- Russell v. Interbay (Ch. Ct. Cook Co., IL) (consumer finance case settled after dismissal of class allegations)
- Searcy v. Impac Funding (Wayne Co., MI) (pending consumer finance class action)
- Hayes v. Impac Funding (Vandenburgh Co., IN) (pending consumer finance class action, consolidated with eight other similar cases)
- Frazier v. Preferred Credit (W.D. Tenn.) (consumer finance class action, removed from state court, is pending)
- Skinner v. Preferred Credit (Durham Co. NC) (consumer class action, to be consolidated with nine other class actions, is pending)
- Hill v. Fieldstone Mortgage (Balt. City, MD) (pending consumer class action, consolidated with nine other class actions)
- lead counsel for a financial services company defending a class action alleging violations of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Sales Finance Act
- defending numerous class action and individual claims alleging violations of the Truth In Lending Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, state unfair trade practices acts, and other federal and state statutes governing consumer financial services
- lead counsel for a financial services company defending a class action alleging abusive and harassing debt collection activities
- achieved dismissal of a class action involving the forms used by an insurance company in an effort to comply with the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas
- defense of a class action involving claims by multiple beneficiaries of trusts against a trustee for breach of fiduciary duty based on its administration of a stock held in all the trusts; obtained transfer of case to Montgomery County, Pa., and court declared that case could not proceed as a class action
- defended a financial services company in potential class action in connection with charges associated with escrow accounts on mortgages; settled on favorable terms before plaintiffs moved for certification; Western Pennsylvania
- an insurance company in defense of a class action challenging its corporate restructuring
- a mutual insurance company in defense of a class action challenging its dividend practices.
Pepper lawyers speak and write frequently about class actions. A Pepper partner wrote the chapter on class actions for the
Drug and Medical Device Litigation Deskbook, published in 2003 by American Lawyer Media, and several articles on class actions. He also recently was appointed chairman of the Class Action Committee of the International Association of Defense Counsel. He previously served as chairman of the Toxic Tort Committee of the ABA’s Tort and Insurance Practice Section.
