 (BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY)   (BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY)   (DESIGN DEFECT)   (FAILURE TO WARN)   (MANUFACTURING DEFECT)   (NEGLIGENCE)   13. On its website, Lands’ End describes itself as “a leading  multi-channel  international  retailer  of  casual  clothing,  accessories . . . legendary for high-quality products at an  exceptional value, plus a commitment to world-class customer  service and an unconditional guarantee.” Business Outfitters by  Lands’ End is described as a trusted brand partner providing  “quality, high-value apparel and promotional products.”   14.  In 2016, Delta selected Lands’ End to provide new  employee uniforms designed by Zac Posen of Bravo’s Project Runway.   This line of uniforms, which are bright purple, technically known  as “Passport Plum,” consist of various articles of clothing,  including a v-neck signature dress, a skirt and blouse, a mock  turtleneck, vest and a sweater set (herein collectively referred  to as the “Uniform”).   16.  The official launch of the new Uniforms occurred on May  29, 2018, and Plaintiffs understand that Delta is planning a one- year anniversary party to celebrate the Uniforms.    17.  Delta describes the Uniforms as high stretch, wrinkle-  and stain-resistant, waterproof, anti-static and deodorizing.   Various chemical additives and finishes are required to ensure  these characteristics.   18.  Once the Uniforms became available, flight attendants  and gate agents had to go to a “fit clinic” to get measured for  the new Uniforms. Delta offered a kit consisting of certain pieces  which were “purchased” with Delta “points” provided by Delta,  rather than cash. If an employee wanted additional pieces, such as  the sweater set, it could be purchased by the employee directly  from Lands’ End using the employee’s own funds.    20.  Shortly after the Uniforms were introduced, some female  flight attendants said that they started getting sick, reporting  skin rashes, shortness of breath, heart palpitations and hair loss.    21.  As reported in an article in The Guardian dated April 4,  2019: “On a private Facebook group used by over 2,000 flight  attendants viewed by the Guardian, hundreds of flight attendants  have complained of health problems as a result of wearing the new  uniforms... The health concerns over the uniforms are serious  enough that some doctors have instructed Delta flight attendants  to bring EpiPens to work in case they break out in rashes.”  See  https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/apr/03/delta-flight- attendants-uniforms-rash-claims   22.   One flight attendant interviewed by the Guardian  stated: “I noticed right away after I put the uniforms on that I  had shortness of breath and I have been a runner my whole life .  . .I don’t smoke or anything like that, so when I couldn’t get up  the stairs without being extremely winded, I know there was some  sort of problem.”  Id.   24.  According to the Guardian article, many doctors believe  that formaldehyde and Teflon chemical finishing put on the uniforms  to make them stain resistant and durable are likely the culprit.   25.  In March 2019, Delta informed some flight attendants  that if they did not want to wear the new Uniforms, they would  need to request a disability job accommodation with the option of  going on short-term disability leave. Under short-term disability  leave, they would only make two-thirds of their pay and would have  to either return to their jobs or quit after a year.    26.  Because Delta flight attendants are non-union, many  flight attendants are afraid to complain about the adverse health  consequences they are experiencing from the new Uniforms.   27.  It has been reported that the National Institute of  Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), which is part of the Center  for Disease Control (CDC), is expected start an official inquiry  into the Passport Plum Uniforms in the near future.  Plaintiffs’ Experiences   28. Plaintiff, Monica DeCrescentis, is a Delta flight  attendant who has experienced skin reactions, headaches and a low  white blood cell count during the past year when she has been  required to wear the Uniform.    30. On January 30, 2019, Delta contacted Ms. DeCrescentis  and asked her if she would agree to have her dress tested for  chemicals, and she agreed to such testing. On February 1, 2019,  Lands’ End and Delta jointly called Ms. DeCrescentis and told her  to wash her Uniform pieces five times in a washer and dry them in  a dryer, and that she cannot hand wash or line-dry them.  Promptly  thereafter, Lands’ End sent her a shipping kit to pack her dress,  which included a plastic bag and tin foil, along with a UPS return  label. She packed up the dress and shipped it to Lands’ End on  February 5, 2019. She has followed up repeatedly with Lands’ End  over the past 3 months, but has received no response.    31. In March 2019, Ms. DeCrescentis spoke about the Uniform  and her concerns to Rob Wissell, Director IFS Communications,  Employee Engagement & Uniforms. He responded that passengers love  the purple Uniforms and that Delta was getting positive feedback.  Delta wanted her to try the v-neck dress, blouse and sweater set,  but she declined because these items are giving employees rashes,  heart palpitations and respiratory flu like symptoms.   33. Plaintiff, Gwyneth Gilbert, is a Delta flight attendant  who has experienced rashes and skin irritations from wearing the  Uniforms.  Ms. Gilbert’s kit included two dresses and a pant suit.   Additionally, she purchased a sweater set directly from Lands’  End.   34.  As early as June or July 2018, Ms. Gilbert found that  wearing the mock turtleneck caused a rash on her skin. Then, in  September and through the fall of 2018, she wore the pants and  blouse part of the Uniform and she broke out in a rash.    35.  The rash which caused irritation on the back of Ms.  Gilbert’s neck, the collarbone area and chest was red and painful  to the touch. She experienced a burning sensation, which made it  difficult for her to complete her normal job duties due to the  pain.   38.  In late fall to December 2018, Ms. Gilbert wore the Plum  dress, resulting in sore throats, headaches, body aches and  fatigue. She had these symptoms each time she worked a flight  wearing the Uniform.   40.  On February 25, 2019, Ms. Gilbert was sent to a  dermatology center in Atlanta for “patch” testing by Sedgwick, the  worker’s compensation administrator, and she had to stay out of  work for the whole week. She became sick after the patch test,   developing a sore throat, headache and body aches, which lasted  almost two weeks.  A copy of a photo of Ms. Gilbert while the patch  test was being administered is set forth below.   42.  Ms. Gilbert was placed on short-term disability leave by  Delta from March 5 through April 2, 2019. While on short-term  disability leave, she was required to use her “certified time” in  order to receive her pay.     43.  Ms. Gilbert returned to work on April 3, 2019 and is now  allowed to wear a black pants suit and white blouse, rather than  the Passport Plum Uniform. Since then, she has experienced no  physical symptoms.  45. Numerosity/Impracticability of Joinder/Ascertainability:       The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all  members would be impracticable. The Class is believed to include  approximately 64,000 members. The Class is composed of an easily  ascertainable, self-identifying set of individuals and entities  that work or have worked for Delta and were or are required to  wear the Passport Plum Uniforms.  Lands’ End has the contact  information for each class member, who were or are required to  select among the several items manufactured by Defendant. The  precise number of Class members can be ascertained by reviewing  documents in Defendant’s possession, custody, and control.   47. Typicality: Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims  of the members of the Class. Plaintiffs and the other members of  the Class have suffered similar injury by the same wrongful  practices by Lands’ End. The claims of Plaintiffs and the other  members of the Class all arise from the same wrongful practices  and course of conduct, and are based on the same legal and remedial  theories.   48. Adequacy Of Representation: Plaintiffs will fully and  adequately assert and protect the interests of the members of the  Class, and have retained class counsel who are experienced and  qualified in prosecuting class actions. Neither Plaintiffs nor  their attorneys have any interests that are contrary to or  conflicting with the members of the Class.   50. Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all others  similarly situated, incorporate by reference the allegations  contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.   51. This claim is brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and the  Class.   52. Defendant owes a duty to individuals, including  Plaintiffs and the Class, to use reasonable care in designing,  manufacturing, marketing, labeling and selling the Uniforms.    54. As a direct and proximate result of Lands’ End’s  negligence, Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered and/or in the  future will suffer personal injuries, pain and suffering, severe  emotional distress, financial or economic loss, including but not  limited to, medical services and expenses, lost income and other  damages.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant for  compensatory and injunctive relief, together with interest, costs  of suit, attorneys’ fees, and such other relief as the Court deems  proper.  55.  Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all others  similarly situated, incorporate by reference the allegations  contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.   57. At all times material to this action, Defendant was  responsible for designing, developing, manufacturing, testing,  promoting, packaging, marketing, distributing and selling the  Uniforms.   58. The Uniforms are defective and unreasonably dangerous to  Plaintiffs and the members of the Class.   59. The Uniforms are defective in their design or formulation  in that it they are not reasonably fit, suitable, or safe their  intended purpose and/or its foreseeable risks exceed the benefits  associated with their design and formulation.    60. At all times material to this action, the Uniforms were  not safe and were not suited for the purposes for which Defendant,  directly and indirectly, advertised, marketed, and promoted them  at the time Defendant designed, manufactured, distributed, and  sold the Uniforms and placed the Uniforms in the stream of  commerce.   62. At the time the Uniforms left the control of Defendant,  there were practical and feasible alternative designs that would  have prevented and/or significantly reduced the risk to the  Plaintiffs’ and the class members of injuries without impairing  the reasonably anticipated or intended function of the Uniforms.  These  safer  alternative  designs  were  economically  and  technologically  feasible,  and  would  have  prevented  or  significantly reduced the risk of injuries to Plaintiffs and the  Class Members without substantially impairing the Uniforms’  utility.   63. As a direct and proximate result of the Uniforms’  defective design, the Plaintiffs and Class Members suffered severe  adverse health reactions and physical injuries, as well as damage  to personal property in the form of clothing and furniture  permanently stained purple.   65. Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all others  similarly situated, incorporate by reference the allegations  contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.   66. This claim is brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and the  Class.   67. The Uniforms manufactured by Lands’ End, which Plaintiffs  and the Members of the Class were required to wear during working  hours, were not reasonably safe for their intended use and were  defective as a matter of law with respect to their manufacture.   69. Defendant is strictly liable to Plaintiffs and the members  of the class for designing, manufacturing, marketing, labeling,  packaging and selling defective Uniforms.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant for  compensatory damages and injunctive relief, together with  interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees, and such other relief as  the Court deems proper.  70. Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all others  similarly situated, incorporate by reference the allegations  contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.   71. This claim is brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and the  Class.   72. The Uniforms manufactured by Lands’ End to be worn by  Plaintiffs and all Delta Flight attendants and gate agents were  not reasonably safe for their intended use and were defective as  a matter of law due to their lack of appropriate and necessary  warnings.   73. Defendant had a duty to warn Plaintiffs and the members  of the Class of the risks and/or defects about which it knew or  should have known.   75. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant intended the  Delta flight attendant and gate agents, including Plaintiffs, to  wear the Uniforms and knew or should have known that the Uniforms  were defective and dangerous.   76. The Uniforms were used/worn by Plaintiffs and the Class  members in a reasonably anticipated and foreseeable manner, and  in the manner for which the Uniforms were intended.   77. At all relevant times hereto, Defendant was situated in  the chain of commerce and transferred, sold, marketed, advertised,  or distributed the Uniforms in the regular course of business.   78. At all times relevant hereto, the Uniforms were in the  same or substantially the same, defective and unreasonably  dangerous condition when put to its reasonably anticipated and  foreseeable use.   80. Had Defendant adequately warned Plaintiffs and the Class  members they would have been alerted to the problem and would have  taken steps to avoid the adverse health consequences before they  occurred.   81. As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendant’s  defectively designed product, Plaintiffs and the members of the  Class sustained serious personal injuries and injuries to property  and losses as detailed more fully herein.   WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants for  compensatory damages and injunctive relief, together with  interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees, and such other relief as  the Court deems proper.  82. Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all others  similarly situated, incorporate by reference the allegations  contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.   83. This claim is brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and the  Class.   84. Defendant made assurances to Delta and Delta’s employees  that the Uniforms would be safe and comfortable and reasonably fit  for their intended purpose.   86. Accordingly, Lands’ End made express warranties under  state law.    87. Plaintiffs and the Class reasonably relied upon Lands’  End’s express warranties and guarantees that the Uniforms were  safe, merchantable, and reasonably fit for their intended purpose.   88. Defendant breached their express warranties by selling to  Delta and the Plaintiffs and the Class unreasonably dangerous and  defective Uniforms jeopardizing the health and safety of  Plaintiffs and the Class and resulting in the permanent staining  of their clothes and other products.   89. Plaintiffs notified Lands’ End of the breach. Lands’ End  was on notice of the breach of warranty well before Plaintiffs  began this litigation.   91.  Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all others  similarly situated, incorporate by reference the allegations  contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.   92.  This claim is brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and the  Class.   94.    The Lands’ End Uniforms are “goods” under the Uniform  Commercial Code (“UCC”).   95.  Lands’ End is a “merchant” under the UCC.   96.  Lands’ End made numerous implied warranties to Delta and  Plaintiffs and the members of the Class about the merchantable  quality of the Uniforms and that they were fit for the ordinary  purpose for which Uniforms are intended.    97.   Plaintiffs and the Class relied upon Lands’ Ends’  implied warranties of merchantability in wearing and purchasing  the Uniforms.   98.   Defendant  breached  the  implied  warranties  of  merchantability because the Uniforms were neither merchantable nor  suited for their intended use as warranted.   A. Delta Decides to Provide New Employee Uniforms from Lands’ End  