Public Justice Statement on U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Luke Davis, et al.

Public Justice Statement on U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Luke Davis, et al.

Today, in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision dismissing as improvidently granted Labcorp v. Davis, Public Justice released the following statement:

The U.S. Supreme Court correctly recognized that it could not reach the merits in this case. This dismissal allows longstanding jurisprudence recognizing the appropriate framework for considering Article III standing in class actions to remain in place. Under that framework, standing for absent class members is treated like any other legal or factual question at the class certification stage, and absent class members must later demonstrate standing to receive damages. LabCorp had asked the Supreme Court to change that well-established framework by requiring each class member to demonstrate standing at the time of class certification for the case to be able to proceed as a class. This unworkable proposition from the corporate bar is unworkable by design; it is an attack designed to destroy the class action mechanism and prevent workers and consumers from pursuing accountability when corporations break the law. Although the U.S. Supreme Court did not grant their request this time, the Court likely remains interested in this issue. The plaintiffs’ bar will need to remain vigilant as corporations continue to press this issue.

We joined an amicus brief with the American Association for Justice, AARP, NCLC, NELA, DRA, and the Impact Fund to explain why frontloading the evidentiary burden of proving individual injury is putting the cart before the horse. The established historical practice is to require named plaintiffs to allege injury and to demonstrate standing at all stages of litigation and to, at the class certification stage, ask whether the factual and legal disputes—including with regard to standing—of absent class members are sufficiently common for the case to proceed as a class. Requiring each individual absent class member to prove standing at the class certification stage would require both parties to hire experts, litigate discovery disputes, and calculate damages before the merits of the case are reached. This new model would make it impossible, or at least much more expensive, to litigate class actions, making it even easier for corporations to get away with nickel-and-diming their customers and workers. The U.S. Supreme Court has, for now, allowed existing law to remain in place and declined to consider a new model that closes the courthouse doors on those fighting to enforce the law against bad actors.  We are grateful to our allies at Gupta Wessler and Public Citizen and across the plaintiffs’ bar who won this hard-earned victory.