HARRISBURG — A New Jersey-based home health care company will have to abide by a trial judge's order last fall to hand over contact information of current and former employees who potentially could become part of a class action, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently ruled.
In its 15-page non-precendential decision issued June 7, the Superior Court quashed Bayada Home Health Care's appeal of an order issued in September by a Philadelphia Commons Pleas Court judge. The order granted a motion to compel discovery in the class action brought by Latisha Reed and Nadeem Pierre, who allege Bayaded violated Pennsylvania wage-and-hour statutes in their case and in those of similarly situated nurses.
Bayada argues the information is confidential but the Superior Court's three-judge panel didn't buy that argument and sent the case back to the common pleas court.
"The trial court shall order any additional relief or clarification that it deems fit," the Superior Court's decision read. "Appeal quashed. Oral argument cancelled. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished."
Superior Court Judge James Gardner Colins wrote the decision in which judges Susan Peikes Gantman and John T. Bender concurred.
Reed and Pierre filed their wage and hour statutes class action in August 2016 and the following month issued their first set of requests to Bayada to produce documents. The requests included Bayada provide contact information and wage and hour data for all the potential class members in Pennsylvania, according to the background portion of the Superior Court's decision.
Bayada, founded in Philadelphia with headquarters in Moorestown, New Jersey, didn't respond, and Reed and Pierre filed a motion to compel discovery in February 2017.
In September 2018, the trial court issued its order and gave Bayada 20 days to provide the plaintiffs with names, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses of the potential class members Pennsylvania.
Bayada "was not ordered to produce personnel files, wage and hour data, or anything beyond the potential class members' contact information," the Superior Court's decision said.
Rather than seek clarification from the trial court about whether its order compelled production of complete personnel files or move for reconsideration, Bayada filed its appeal 20 days later.
In deciding to quash the appeal, the Superior Court said Bayada failed a three-prong test to successfully appeal a collateral order.
"To summarize, [Bayada] failed to assert a constitutional or statutory privacy interest or a specific privilege," the decision noted. "Its generalized concerns about privacy and privilege are inadequate to satisfy the requirement of Pa.R.A.P. 313(b) that ‘the right involved is too important to be denied review.' Consequently, appellant has failed to satisfy the second prong of the test for the appealability of collateral orders as it relates to the Sept. 26 order. Since one prong fails, the entire test fails, and collateral appellate review cannot be allowed."