On July 17, 2020, three current employees of the corporate-owned McDonald’s restaurant at 5525 Walt Loop Road in Lakeland, Florida filed a civil rights complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida alleging that they were subjected to a racially hostile work environment, disparate treatment, and retaliation by McDonald’s. Plaintiffs Monica Scott, Augusta Moody, and Faith Booker alleged, among other things, that their general manager made racist comments about Black people and subjected Black workers and customers to discriminatory treatment. The lawsuit further alleges that the regional manager and a human resources representative notified about the discriminatory behavior failed to remedy the situation and that, after plaintiffs raised their concerns, they faced retaliation, including reduced hours. Plaintiffs are represented by Altshuler Berzon LLP, Peter Helwig of Harris & Helwig, PA, and Mary Joyce Carlson.
On June 22, 2020, the Alameda County Superior Court issued a temporary restraining order preventing an Oakland McDonald’s restaurant from reopening without compliance with COVID-19 safety precautions and approval by the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health. In the lawsuit, McDonald’s workers represented by Altshuler Berzon LLP allege that the restaurant’s inadequate health and safety practices, including requiring workers to work while sick and not ensuring sufficient cleaning, personal protective equipment, or social distancing, spread COVID-19 among workers and their families and created a public nuisance. The temporary restraining order is in effect until a July 2, 2020 hearing on the workers’ request for a preliminary injunction. The case is Yamilett Olimara Osoy Hernandez, et al. v. VES McDonald’s, et al., Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. RG20064825. The restaurant is located at 4514 Telegraph Avenue in Oakland, California.
Judgment for Oil and Gas Company Defendants Reversed: No Basis for Federal Jurisdiction
In two sets of consolidated cases decided May 26, 2020, a Ninth Circuit panel held that California cities and counties represented by Altshuler Berzon LLP and Sher Edling LLP may continue to prosecute claims against several of the world’s largest privately owned oil and gas companies, including Chevron, Exxon Mobil, BP, and Royal Dutch Shell, for harms to public infrastructure resulting from climate-change-related global warming.
In the first set of cases, brought by the City of Oakland and the City and County of San Francisco (and argued by Altshuler Berzon LLP partner Michael Rubin), the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment against five oil and gas company defendants. Those cases had been removed from state court on seven jurisdictional grounds. The district court denied remand after concluding that although the cases were brought under California’s representative public nuisance law (Cal. Civil Code §3480, et seq.), they actually “arose under” federal common law for purposes of federal subject matter jurisdiction. The district court thus asserted subject matter jurisdiction, but it later dismissed the cases on the ground that the Clean Air Act “displaced” the applicable federal common law, leaving Oakland and San Francisco without any cause of action they could pursue in federal court.
The unanimous Ninth Circuit panel (Ikuta, J., with Christen and Lee, JJ.) reversed, holding that the district court erred in finding “arising under” jurisdiction because the state law tort claims pleaded by Oakland and San Francisco did not trigger application of the federal common law governing trans-boundary air pollution and because the Clean Air Act did not “completely preempt” state public nuisance law. The panel did not reach any of the other issues in the case but remanded the case to the district court to determine whether any remaining grounds for subject matter jurisdiction precluded remand.
The second set of cases, brought by the County of San Mateo and five other public entities against more than two dozen oil and gas company defendants, raised similar California state law tort claims. In those cases, the Ninth Circuit panel affirmed a different district court’s order remanding the cases to the state courts in which they had been filed. Construing the federal removal statute, 28 U.S.C. §1447(d), as prohibiting appellate review of any remand order except to the extent federal-officer jurisdiction or Civil Rights Act jurisdiction was an asserted basis for removal, the Ninth Circuit panel held that because the oil and gas company defendants failed to establish federal-officer jurisdiction (and did not allege Civil Rights Act jurisdiction), the cases must be remanded to state court without regard to any of the non-reviewable jurisdiction grounds alleged by those defendants.
Several Altshuler Berzon LLP attorneys worked on these cases, including B.J. Chisholm, Corinne Johnson, and Michael Rubin.
The cases are City of Oakland et al. v. BP PLC et al., __ F.3d __, 2020 WL 2703701 ( 9th Cir. May 26, 2020), and County of San Mateo et al. v. Chevron Corp. et al., __ F.3d __, 2020 WL 2703701 (9th Cir. May 26, 2020).