August 2013: Appellate Update

by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
Contact

U.S. Supreme Court Concludes October 2012 Term. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded its October 2012 Term in June with a number of highly publicized cases on issues like race and gay marriage, but equally notable are the Term’s major business decisions. In the fields of arbitration, class action, preemption, and employment law, the Roberts Court continued its striking trend toward interpreting statutes and procedural rules so as to make it more difficult to pursue claims in civil litigation.

Arbitration. In American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 133 S. Ct. 2304 (2013), the Court interpreted the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) to make class action waivers in arbitration clauses enforceable even where the cost of bringing a federal statutory claim in individual arbitration exceeds the potential recovery. Italian Colors Restaurant, on behalf of itself and other merchants, sued American Express for violations of the federal antitrust laws, arguing that American Express had used its monopoly power in the charge card market to extract excessive fees from merchants accepting its credit cards. The Court, in a 5-3 decision, reversed the Second Circuit, which had found an exception to the waiver because the costs of bringing the antitrust claim on an individual basis (including seven-figure expert fees) exceeded the potential recovery of only $38,549. The Court thus held that American Express was entitled to compel arbitration on an individual basis pursuant to the agreement between American Express and its customer-merchants. “[T]he fact that it is not worth the expense involved in proving a statutory remedy,” the Court wrote, “does not constitute the elimination of the right to pursue that remedy.”

Class Actions. In Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013), the Court reversed a ruling affirming a class certification in an antitrust case where there was an issue whether class-wide damages could be proved. Reversing the Third Circuit, the Court held by a vote of 5-4 that, in applying Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)’s requirement that common issues of law or fact predominate over individual facts, a court may not ignore questions at the certification stage just because they also go to the merits of the claim; that the rigorous analysis required at the class certification stage applies to issues of damages as well as liability; and that plaintiffs’ damages model—which assumed the validity of four different theories of antitrust impact, three of which the district court had rejected—fell “far short” of satisfying the predominance requirement. The decision gives defendants a new argument against class certification in any case where plaintiffs are unable to develop a damages model based on a theory of liability that is susceptible to class-wide proof. While the reach of Comcast outside the antitrust context is yet to be determined, the Court has already vacated and remanded, in light of Comcast, three appeals court judgments that had affirmed class action certifications in wage-and-hour and product-liability cases. In contrast to recent decisions increasing burdens on class action plaintiffs, however, Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1184 (2013), held by a vote of 6-3 that class plaintiffs in a securities fraud case under § 10(b) need not prove at the certification stage that defendant’s alleged misrepresentations were “material”—an essential element of the underlying
§ 10(b) claim.

Preemption. In Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. v. Bartlett, 133 S. Ct. 2466 (2013), the Court held that federal law preempts state-law design-defect claims against manufacturers of drugs that are the generic equivalents of FDA approved drugs. Reversing the First Circuit, the Court held by a vote of 5-4 that a $21 million judgment against Mutual Pharmaceutical under New Hampshire law had been improperly granted. The majority found that the state’s design-defect law required the company to alter either the labeling or the chemical composition of the challenged drug and thus conflicted with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act’s requirement that a generic drug use the same labeling as its brand-name equivalent. The Court rejected the First Circuit’s suggestion that Mutual Pharmaceutical could have complied with state and federal law by withdrawing its drug from the market, holding that “[o]ur pre-emption cases presume that an actor seeking to satisfy both his federal- and state-law obligations is not required to cease acting altogether in order to avoid liability.” The decision extended the Court’s earlier decision in Pliva v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567 (2011), which had found the same kind of conflict preemption under the FDCA for state-law negligent-failure-to-warn claims; the cases leave branded manufacturers, however, subject to such state-law claims under the Court’s previous decision in Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009), where the Court held that branded manufacturers (unlike generic manufacturers) can change their labels under the FDCA.

Employment. In employment discrimination cases last Term, the Court made it more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed on workplace harassment and retaliation claims. Under Title VII, an employer is strictly liable when a “supervisor” commits workplace harassment that results in a tangible employment action. In Vance v. Ball State University, 133 S. Ct. 2434 (2013), the Court, in a 5-4 decision, narrowed the definition of “supervisors” under Title VII to those who are “empowered by the employer” to make “a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities,” rejecting the broader definition urged by the plaintiffs that would have defined a “supervisor” as one who assigns a worker day-to-day tasks. In University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (2013), the Court held, again in a 5-4 decision, that a retaliation claim may not proceed unless the plaintiff employee can prove that his employer would not have taken the adverse employment action “but for” a desire to retaliate. The Court rejected, for retaliation claims, the less stringent standard used in some other kinds of employment discrimination actions that allows a plaintiff’s case to proceed if the prohibited ground is merely a “motivating factor” in the employer’s decision.

This Term thus reinforced that, where statutes or procedural rules are ambiguous, the Roberts Court tends to use the tools of statutory interpretation to read them in ways that limit civil litigation. Such decisions, this Term, as in previous Terms, have yielded significant victories for the business community.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
Contact
more
less

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!