Class Action Roundup – January 30, 2017

ACLU, NILC File Class Action Challenging Trump’s Executive Travel Ban Order

A class action lawsuit has been filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) on behalf of two men from Iraq who were detained at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York following President Donald Trump’s executive order banning immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries and temporarily canceling admissions from the U.S. refugee program. Following the filing of the suit, a federal judge granted the ACLU’s request for a temporary stay to block the deportation of individuals with valid visas stranded at U.S. airports due to President Trump’s action.

The two named plaintiffs in the suit were both granted visas before President Trump signed the executive order and were traveling home to see their families, with one of the men receiving his visa for his service as a U.S. Army translator in Iraq for 10 years. The other man was on his way to meet his wife and son, both permanent U.S. residents.

Yahoo reports that the class action filed in New York is one of three filed or in-the-works lawsuits over President Trump’s orders. The 20-page complaint, filed in New York district court, can be viewed on the ACLU’s website here.

Read more about the lawsuit and the legal challenges of President Trump’s executive orders here.

Lawsuit: Apple Withheld Release of Texting and Driving “Lock Out” Technology to Protect Profits

A proposed class action lawsuit out of a California state court claims Apple, since 2008, has possessed patented technology that could prevent drivers from texting on iPhones while driving, but failed to equip the devices with said technology for fear the company would “lose valuable market share.” The lawsuit seeks to stop the sale of iPhones in California that do not come with a “lock out device,” as well as an order requiring Apple to update all iPhones with the device. The California man who filed the suit claims he was rear-ended by an individual who was texting while driving.

The lawsuit, which describes texting while driving as a “full-blown epidemic of national importance,” claims Apple has for a decade been well-aware of the dangers associated phone use while driving.

“Apple’s patent application was granted in 2014,” the lawsuit says. “Yet, despite having had the technology for nearly a decade, and being the recipient of a valid patent, Apple refuses to employ the technology, fearful that doing so will cause it to lose valuable market share to its competitors.”

The full complaint against Apple can be read here. Also, check out MacRumors.com for a more on the suit.

TCPA Class Action Against DISH Network Nets $20.5M Verdict for Consumers

A North Carolina jury ruled last week that DISH Network owes $20.5 million to class members in a case that claimed the company violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by placing more than 51,000 telemarking calls to consumers whose numbers were already on the national Do Not Call list.

One of the plaintiffs’ attorneys called DISH Network out on its “corporate shell game” of signing up new customers through illegal telemarketing practices, namely via its order entry retailer program.

Get the full scoop on the $20.5 million judgment with Mark Huffman’s write up over on ConsumerAffairs.com.

Former Diversity Manager Claims Fiat Chrysler Discriminates Against Black Non-Union Workers

A former diversity manager for Fiat Chrysler has claimed in a proposed class action lawsuit that the Michigan car company discriminates against black non-union employees by, among other things, giving them lower job ratings, which are weighed heavily in determining bonuses, advancements, and other employment benefits and opportunities. The case specifically claims that Fiat Chrysler workers were evaluated through a two-step process that “relied heavily on subjective input” rather than irrefutable job performance data.

Fiat Chrysler, in a statement, claimed the proposed class action is without merit, and that the company “does not tolerate harassment or discrimination of any kind.”

The plaintiff who filed the suit, an MLive.com report says, claims she observed a company-wide pattern of black non-union employees being given lower overall job evaluations at “an alarmingly disproportionate rate.”

Dive into the case with Danielle’s Salisbury’s piece on MLive.com.