For some companies, apparently even the famously liberal policy favoring arbitration isn’t enough of an assurance that they can avoid defending a consumer class action in court. Or so the plaintiffs in an antitrust bench trial pending in federal court in New York’s Southern District have posited, pointing to 28 meetings between 1999 and 2003, held among senior representatives of leading national banks, about implementing mandatory arbitration for credit card customers. See Ross v. American Express, No. 04-5723 (S.D.N.Y. filed July 22, 2004); Ross v. Bank of America, No. 05-7116 (S.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 11, 2005).

The trial opened in January of 2013, with the plaintiff himself testifying candidly: “I find it particularly abhorrent that all the credit card companies got together under the covers to basically screw the American consumer.” It is alleged that the banks reveled in the favorable quid pro quo likely to result from directing massive filing fees at reliably pro-defendant arbitrators, with the National Arbitration Forum (NAF) receiving particular praise from one of the bank defendants, First USA.

The meetings, with agenda items such as “the end of class actions,” brought together otherwise staunch competitors, including Bank of America, American Express, Capital One, Chase Bank, Discover, HSBC, MBNA, and Providian. Within three years, every major bank had implemented a mandatory arbitration policy for their credit card customers, and on starkly similar terms. The plaintiff is seeking an eight-year ban on arbitration clauses in credit card user agreements.

The antitrust action has already yielded results, as four of the bank defendants — JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, HSBC and Capital One — settled in 2010, each agreeing to ban arbitration clauses for three-and-a-half years – a measure due to expire this year. The remaining defendants — American Express, Discover and Citigroup — have steadfastly resisted settlement, and in their closing arguments insisted that there was nothing nefarious in the 28 meetings that are the cornerstone of the plaintiff’s case.

If the plaintiff’s antitrust claims prevail before U.S. District Judge William Pauley and the eight-year arbitration clause ban is imposed, the banks will be unable to partake of the fully legal greasing of the arbitration skids provided by decisions like AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion. It appears that the banks did not foresee that the U.S. Supreme Court would undertake a remarkably similar agenda, and without the burden of antitrust compliance.

In a win for employees seeking to remedy broad, systematic employer violations of workplace protections, California’s intermediate appellate court has reversed a trial court judge’s denial of class certification. Bluford v. Safeway Stores, Inc., No. C066074 (Cal. Ct. App. May 8, 2013) (slip opinion available here). Focusing on the often-decisive predominance requirement for class certification, the unanimous three-judge panel took issue with the trial court’s findings that individual issues predominated over common issues as to the plaintiff’s meal and rest break claims and that the plaintiff failed to allege a common injury resulting from the inadequate wage statements. Holding that “[i]nsufficient evidence supports the trial court’s ruling,” the Court of Appeal found that common issues predominated as to the meal, rest and wage statement claims, and directed the trial court to certify each claim. Slip op. at 2.

The issues around certification of the meal break claim were familiar, with the plaintiff presenting evidence of a systematic, de facto policy of the defendant not providing second meal breaks after the tenth hour of a shift. Slip op. at 11-12. The Court of Appeal deemed inadequate the defendant’s proffering of three declarations from supervisors, attesting to having provided the workers under them sufficient opportunity to take second meal breaks, notwithstanding the company’s lack of any written second meal policy comparable to its written policy governing first meal breaks. Slip op. at 12-13.

As to the rest break claim, the Court of Appeal extensively considered the defendant’s proffered defense, which seemingly entailed extensive individual questions. Slip op. at 7-9. However, the Court of Appeal ruled that determining whether Safeway’s rest break policy and purported practice of including payment for rest breaks in mileage reimbursements complied with California law could be accomplished in a single, common adjudication. Slip op. at 9-10.

Safeway offered a familiar defense to certification of a wage statement class by focusing on the California Labor Code requirement (under Cal. Lab. Code § 226(e)) that there must be an “injury” coincident with a wage statement violation. However, consistent with the California Legislature’s recent clarification of the wage statement statute, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s denial of certification as to the wage statement claim, noting that “‘a very modest showing will suffice.’” Slip op. at 15, citing Jaimez v. DAIOHS USA, Inc., 181 Cal. App. 4th 1286, 1306 (2010).

While this case is not currently designated as published, the Third Appellate District’s rigorously reasoned and detailed ruling as to some of the most frequently pleaded classwide claims would likely find considerable utility as a published case.

Responding to allegations that Henry’s Turkey (an Iowa-based subsidiary of Hill County Farms) subjected a class of intellectually disabled workers to verbal abuse and deprivation of rights, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought suit for discrimination against the turkey processor in 2011 (read the complaint here). The EEOC lawsuit was brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination against disabled employees in wages and workplace conditions, and bars disability-based harassment.

This case has now yielded a $240 million jury verdict, the largest in EEOC’s history according to the agency. The jury found that Henry’s Turkey had subjected the 32 plaintiffs to severe abuse and discrimination, and awarded the former employees, who earned a meager $65 per month working at Henry’s, $5.5 million each in compensatory damages and $2 million each in punitive damages.

The abuse was shocking in its cruelty. During the trial, the EEOC offered evidence that the employer (including owners and supervisors) directed verbal abuse at the workers, regularly referring to them as “retarded,” “dumb ass” and “stupid.” The company also failed to provide workers with the medical care that was needed in the course of the high-risk work and paid them well under the minimum wage. In the face of such serious allegations, Hill County Farms nonetheless opted to take the case to trial, refusing to settle through the ADA’s mandatory conciliation process.

The significance of this historic jury award is eloquently summed up by an EEOC press release: “The verdict sends an important message that the conduct that occurred here is intolerable in this nation, and hopefully will help to restore dignity and acknowledge the humanity of the workers who were mistreated for so many years.”

The Federal National Mortgage Association, better known as Fannie Mae, and Big Four accounting firm KPMG have agreed to pay $153 million to settle a securities class action that has been litigated over the past eight years. The class members are Fannie Mae shareholders, chiefly large institutional investors and pension plans. The complaint alleges that Fannie Mae, in concert with its auditor, KMPG, violated established accounting principles and published misleading financial reports, which caused Fannie Mae’s stock price to be artificially inflated. The settlement (available here) now awaits a preliminary approval ruling from U.S. District Judge Richard Leon.

No word on why Fannie Mae and other lenders have opted for cheerful nicknames rather than simple, staid acronyms.