9th-circuitBy Laura J. Maechtlen and Courtney K. Bohl

As our readers may recall, in November 2012, Judge G. Murray Snow of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona nixed a subpoena issued by the EEOC seeking employee pedigree information (name, address, telephone number and social security number), and information regarding the reasons for employee terminations. The court
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit: The EEOC Can Subpoena Extensive Employee Information

9th-circuitBy Christopher M. Cascino and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

In Baker v. Microsoft Corp., No. 12-35946, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4317 (9th Cir. Mar. 18, 2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered whether to adopt a rule creating a principle of comity between different federal district courts under which denial of class certification in one district
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Opinion Suggests Potential Tool To Oppose Certification Of Successive Class Or Collective Actions

By Eric M. Lloyd and Laura J. Maechtlen 

Late last week, plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California felt the ripple effects of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decisions regarding same-sex marriage in United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry.

In Dragovich v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, et al., No. C-10-01564
Continue Reading Court Dismisses Class Claims Brought By Same-Sex Domestic Partners

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Stockwell v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, Case No. 12-15070 (9th Cir.  April 24, 2014), is already sparking a debate over the meaning of Rule 23. Our posting on the ruling is here. The decision ought to be required reading for all corporate counsel concerned about workplace
Continue Reading Point / Counter-Point: The Debate On The Meaning Of Rule 23

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Laura J. Maechtlen

On April 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Stockwell v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, Case No. 12-15070 (9th Cir.  April 24, 2014), overturned an order denying class certification of age discrimination claims filed by a group of police officers against the City
Continue Reading New Ruling In The San Francisco Police Officers Case Dilutes Wal-Mart’s Impact On Class Certification Motions

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Laura J. Maechtlen  

As we reported here, following their stinging defeat before the U.S. Supreme Court in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), plaintiffs rebooted their claims in a fourth amended complaint alleging class-based gender discrimination claims with very important changes aimed to address deficiencies identified by the
Continue Reading The Final Chapter In Dukes v. Wal-Mart?

By Laura J. Maechtlen and Brian Wong

Here’s a question fit for October 31: Can an employer be liable for over $100,000 in punitive damages in a Title VII action, despite a jury award to the plaintiff of zero compensatory damages and merely one dollar in nominal damages? In an opinion that should scare the daylights out of employers everywhere,
Continue Reading “It’s Alive!” The Ninth Circuit Affirms A Hair-Raising Punitive Award To A Title VII Plaintiff Who Suffered No Actual Harm

wdwas.jpgBy Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer A. Riley

On June 6, 2013, Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington issued an opinion in Canada v. Meracord, LLC, No. 12-5657 (W.D. Wash. June 6, 2012), and denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims. 

In a cursory opinion, Judge Settle held that an

Continue Reading District Court Shuts Down Defense Tactic And Finds That Offer Of Judgment Does Not Moot Class Claims

CADNUSBy Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Laura J. Maechtlen

We previously blogged about what could have been the final chapter for one of the smaller “rebooted” class actions following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), but a September 21, 2012 ruling by Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District

Continue Reading “Re-Booted” Claims Survive Motion To Dismiss In Dukes Fourth Amended Complaint

lawjusticeandflagcopy2.jpgBy Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Laura J. Maechtlen, and Joshua M. Henderson

Under Title VII, the EEOC has an obligation before filing suit to engage in conciliation in good faith with an employer that is the subject of the Commission’s investigation and good cause determination. This conciliation requirement is not a perfunctory task, or a mere box that

Continue Reading The EEOC Suffers A Set-Back Due To Its Rush To Litigation