By Rebecca Bjork and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.
A recent decision underscores how employers facing workplace class actions need to consider all avenues of attack early on to best position themselves to avoid costly discovery and class certification litigation. In Harrison v. The Progressive Corp., et al., No. 1:12 CV 625, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136719 (N.D. Ohio Sept.
By 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
By Christopher DeGroff and Michael A. Wahlander
In EEOC v. Hill Country Farms, Inc., No. 3-11-CV-41 (S.D. Iowa Sept. 18, 2012), the Commission secured summary judgment this past week on its claims that an employer discriminated against intellectually disabled workers by paying them lower wages than non-disabled persons. The ruling awarded a group of 32 employees over $1.3 million.
Continue Reading The EEOC Obtains $1.3 Million Award For Disability Discrimination Wage Claims
By Chris Palamountain and David Ross
We have been monitoring and blogging here about the Seventh Circuit’s curious decision in McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 672 F.3d 482 (7th Cir. 2012) (“McReynolds I”). Sometimes when an appellate court issues a decision in the case, it brings a sense of finality and closure, at
By Christopher DeGroff and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.
The explosive ruling in EEOC v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc., 670 F.3d 897 (8th Cir. 2012), in which the Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa’s order that sanctioned the EEOC a whopping $4.5 million, is easily a contender for our “Top 5
Continue Reading The EEOC Declines To Ask The Supreme Court To Hear EEOC v. CRST
By Lynn Kappelman and Chris Palamountain
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has joined a growing chorus of courts willing to apply the Supreme Court’s decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), beyond the employment class action context. In Barrett v. Option One Mort. Corp., Case No. 08-10157, 2012 WL 4076465
By Christopher DeGroff and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.
In response to the EEOC’s June 4, 2012 press release soliciting public input on its Revised Draft Strategic Enforcement Plan, Seyfarth Shaw submitted its recommendations to the EEOC on September 18 for ways in which it can better achieve the goal of discrimination-free workplaces while not disregarding employer interests and involvement in
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer Riley
On September 14, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued another opinion in EEOC v. Kronos, Inc., No. 2:09-MC-00079 (3d Cir. Sept. 14, 2012) (“Kronos II”), addressing an ongoing controversy concerning the scope of the EEOC’s subpoena power. (Click here for our previous post on this
Continue Reading Third Circuit Reaffirms EEOC’s Broad Subpoena Power In Mixed Ruling For Employers
By Christopher DeGroff and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.
On September 13, 2012, Judge Ed Kinkeade of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in EEOC v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 06-CV-1732 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 13, 2012), on the EEOC’s allegations of age discrimination in violation of the ADEA. Judge Kinkeade
Continue Reading BFOQ Defense Trumps The EEOC – Summary Judgment Entered Against The Commission
By Christopher DeGroff and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.
Recently, in EEOC v. Ford Motor Co., No. 11-CV-13742 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 10, 2012), Judge John O’Meara of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan rejected the EEOC’s attempt to pursue allegations that the Defendant – Ford Motor Company – failed to accommodate its employee in violation of
Continue Reading Court Sends Message To EEOC: Employer Is Given Deference In Accommodation Decision