Plaintiffs in Vail Resorts federal labor lawsuit reject motion to defer case

Plaintiffs in pending federal labor law violation lawsuit against Vail Resorts oppose company efforts to postpone lawsuit as it settles three similar cases filed in California.

While the three cases are similar in some ways to the proposed class action lawsuit in Colorado District Court, the plaintiffs say their case – known as Quint et al. Case – is stronger and contains broader claims that would call for a more impactful settlement, according to recent legal documents filed.

A motion from Vail Resorts to postpone the Colorado case while the California cases are settled was granted by a federal judge last month. If these cases are resolved, then the company could argue that the agreement should address Quint et al. case as well, which the plaintiffs’ lawyers say is a blatant attempt to get away with it easily.

Edward Dietrich, counsel for the plaintiffs in Quint et al. case, declined to comment on the progress of the case. Dietrich and Benjamin Galdston now represent the 16 plaintiffs.

Vail Resorts is currently represented by Jonathan O. Harris and Raul Chacon, Jr. of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart. Vail Resorts and its lawyers declined to comment on the latest developments in these cases.

Quint et al. the case was first filed in December 2020 in Colorado District Court on behalf of Randy Dean Quint, John Linn and Mark Molina, who are current or former employees of Beaver Creek Resort.

The case alleges that Vail Resorts violated federal fair labor standards law as well as the labor laws of the states of Colorado and eight other states. Lawyers for the plaintiffs are seeking class action status to pursue the case on behalf of a larger group or “class” affected by the allegations, who in this case are current and former employees who worked for Vail Resorts for the past three years.

Since the December filing, the three original plaintiffs named have been joined by 13 other plaintiffs from various states who have chosen to join the class action, according to documents filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The complainants’ allegations include inappropriate compensation for time worked and inappropriate reimbursement for work-related expenses as well as “breach of contract and unjust enrichment”.

“Vail Resorts has always been committed to treating its employees fairly and in accordance with all applicable laws,” wrote Jamie Alvarez, the company’s director of corporate communications, in a statement last month.

Postpone the postponement

Shortly after Quint et al. the case was granted, Dietrich and Galdston filed an objection alleging that trial judge Gordon P. Gallagher, a federal judge attending the Quint et al. case, used the wrong legal standard to make their decision.

decision should be overturned because it is “clearly wrong and against the law”, they said in the objection filed on October 22.

“The public interest does not weigh in favor of a stay,” they argued. Justice Gallagher also “ignored” the negative impacts a stay would have on complainants in Quint et al. case and ignored “evidence of Vail’s misconduct in the litigation,” they wrote.

Vail Resorts denied the allegations in a recent statement opposing Dietrich and Galdston’s objection to the ruling. The company argued that the postponement of the review of Quint et al. As settlement proceedings progress in California cases, this will save all parties time and resources.

“We dispute the accuracy of the claims raised by the plaintiffs, however, to avoid the time-consuming and costly nature of new litigation, the parties involved have negotiated an interim settlement and will seek court approval to finalize and ensure that the outcome is fair. resolution to all, “Alvarez said in his statement on behalf of Vail Resorts.

The two main California lawsuits against Vail Resorts were filed by Anna Gibson and Adam Heggen, both former employees of Vail Resorts.

Heggen has filed a “putative class action lawsuit” – meaning class action status is offered but has not yet been granted by a judge – against Heavenly Mountain Resort. The case was filed in California state court in October 2020 before being transferred to district court, court documents show. The lawsuit alleges Heggen was not paid for breaks and meals while working as a security guard for the complex.

The origins of the Gibson case can be traced back to November 2019, but a lawsuit was not filed in the U.S. District Court in Eastern California until April 2021, according to documents filed in the case.

A third related case has been filed by a man named Christopher Hamilton, also against Heavenly Valley. This case was filed in July 2021 in California Superior Court in El Dorado County, where it remains today.

Of the four cases, the study by Quint et al. The case filed in December 2020 was “the first Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) action brought against Vail,” meaning she should take priority and be allowed to continue, Galdston and Dietrich wrote in their objection to Gallagher’s decision.

Further, their case “has come before the jurisdiction of Vail’s headquarters and asserts the broader claims,” ​​they wrote. “These three factors alone raise a ‘strong presumption’ that the claims against Vail should be tried and resolved in this district.”

“Finally, other relevant factors, including unfair conduct, bad faith and forum shopping (by Vail Resorts), compel prosecution in this district,” the lawyers wrote.

A motion to intervene in the Californian affairs

A week and a half after filing the objection to the judge’s ruling, Dietrich and Galdston filed a motion to intervene in one of the California cases on the grounds that a settlement would “harm or impede” their ability to protect the interests of their clients.

“Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a” court shall allow anyone to intervene who[claimsaninterestinthesubjectmatteroftheactionandissoplacedthattheeliminationoftheactionmayinpracticeimpairorhindertheabilityofthemovementtoprotecthisorherinterestinthepastandpresentinterest”[revendiqueunintérêtrelatifàl’objetdel’actionetestsituédetellesortequel’éliminationdel’actionpeutdanslapratiquealtérerouentraverlacapacitédumouvementàprotégersonintérêtàmoinsquelespartiesexistantesnereprésententadéquatementcetintérêt»ontécritlesavocatsdanslarequêtedéposéle2novembre

If the Californian colonies go ahead with Quint et al. the matter has been postponed, the employees who cash the settlement offer waive their legal rights to join Quint et al. Case. That would probably leave Dietrich and Galdston with a smaller class and less bargaining power to get full reimbursement of unpaid wages and the policy change their clients demand.

Galdston and Dietrich filed the motion to intervene in the Gibson case last week. If the judge grants their request, they would be allowed to participate in a Dec. 17 hearing in the Eastern California U.S. District Court to explain why they should be allowed to join the Gibson case.

If Dietrich and Galdston are allowed to intervene in the case, they have announced their intention to immediately file a motion to dismiss the California cases so that settlement proceedings cannot move forward.

This would allow Quint et al. to go ahead instead, and California plaintiffs could sign on to be part of the Quint et al. case. case and benefit from any future settlement reached in that case.

However, this increasingly complex situation became even more uncertain last week when Judge Kimberly J. Mueller, a district court judge presiding over the Gibson case, signed a document filed by Vail Resorts asking to move the proceedings from settlement in California state court.

The document filed by Vail Resorts on Oct. 29 called for consolidation of the settlement proceedings in the three California cases as part of the Hamilton case. This would move the case from the Eastern California District Court to be argued in California state court instead.

Dietrich and Galdston’s motion to intervene in Judge Mueller’s courtroom was filed a few days later, on November 2, but Mueller signed the request to withdraw the case from his jurisdiction on November 4.

Given all of this, it’s not clear whether Dietrich and Galdston will be able to appear before Judge Mueller for the December 17 hearing.

The hearing is still set, but awaits clarification from Judge Mueller – clarification that Galdston and Dietrich cannot seek directly because they cannot participate in the Gibson case unless their motion to intervene is granted.